Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

I didn't mean "discredit" in that way.  Perhaps I should have said "disrepute."  When I sense that someone is highly emotional and very committed to their "cause," I tend to pay less attention to what they say.  I figure it's the same with others, too.  I would rather talk to a rational advocate that a crusading "activist."

 

I wouldn't try to "engage" a fervent global warming alarmist about the "science" of climatology, for example.

Yet you are totally committed to your own cause. You just have a better control of you temperament.

We all cant be so level headed and calm. That's why we should not dismiss the thoughts of those less able.

I may be passionate about my discovery that much of what I read in the Scientific publications is nonsensical, and surely that's reason enough to get stirred up a little.

But I'm still open to critical review. If you can present a clear case, that I can't fault, Ill gladly jump on board. I have no PhD to prop up, no job in academia to loose, my income does not depend on this stuff.

In my view, my understanding and evaluation of the subject is all that matters. I don't care what some professor thinks in particular. If he is making sense, then Ill accept his ideas, till some contrary or better views surface.

I'm not going to believe in such and such, on the basis that some famous guy believe it.

I do think that its healthy to GENERALIZE when considering obtuse theories. Push the idea to opposite extremes, see if it still works.

That's the way I decided that I cant accept Einsteins work. Same for LT. And Quantum.

Edited February 12, 2019 by marcospolo

[ralfcis]

This thread wouldn't even make it to the loony bin on the forum I just got banned from. Anyway keep going for the record. You all seem to be having a grand old time.

 

PS You've hit #3 of all time most views!

Edited February 12, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Can you please give me a link to some paper that discusses LT that dispenses with everything except time dilation? ( or clocks loosing time)

 

 

Naw, I think I'll pass on that.  A while back you were demanding a physical explanation for the LT, so I posted a link to a paper proposing one (there are many).  Not another word from you about it.  I seriously doubt that you even clicked on the link.

 

You don't really seem to interested in hearing any explanations.  You're just interested in shouting that, given your superior insight, you already know that no such explanation can possibly exist.  You already have all the "explanation" you're looking for.

 

If you're actually interested, look for yourself.  I aint your errand boy.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

moronium;

 

1. The propagation speed of light in space/vacuum is constant noted as 'c' and independent of its source....Light propagation being a physical phenomenon,would be the same for all inertial frames per the 1st postulate.

 

  

As always, you just assert that the word of God says so, thump your bible, and consider it a done deal.  I can read the bible too.  I don't need you to read it to me.   

 

I have already addressed the questions you purport to ask in the rest of this post.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

'uneducated fool', [your words, not mine]

You just told me that there are no "special" frames, [in SR]

"absolute earth frame." [in GR] 

"but what you meant" [there you go, mind reading]

maybe you have a vision/memory problem

 

I already asked you why you bring in GR, which is a theory of gravity, not a theory of relative motion, and not the topic of discussion here.  That was in a different post.  As usual, you refused to respond to that question, just as you refuse to make any substantive response to the post you're quoting here.

 

Are you suggesting that you now reject SR because it has been abolished and superseded by GR?   That your position?

 

I'm not "mind reading."  I'm simply correcting your imprecise terminology.  We both know what you mean.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 As you have deduced there is (probably) no empirical way to even put that absurdity to the test. 

 

I realize that you have qualified this by the parenthetical "probably," but still...

 

Why not just go the whole hog and take the next logical step, to wit:

 

Just say, as Popper would, that the proposition, being unfalsifiable, is not a scientific proposition at all.  It is mere "pseudo-science."  Metaphysics, ya might say.

[Moronium]

So, I cant accept your conclusion that a hypothesis MUST be wrong because simply because of the "majority rules" logical fallacy.

 

 

Hmmm, when did I ever draw that conclusion?

 

When your emotions entice you to make fallacious arguments (this straw man argument, for example), you lose credibility, and that's what I was talking about when I said you discredit yourself.

 

Here's few other fallacious arguments you seem to routinely favor:

 

1.  An Argument from Ignorance.  You display this in a couple of forms:

 

(I)  Because something hasn't been proven true, then it has to be false.

 

(II)  Because you can't prove that I'm wrong, then I must be right.

 

2. An argument from incredulity:    This is closely related to the arguments from ignorance.  Basically the claim is that because I don't (or refuse to) believe it, that proves it must be wrong.

 

3.  Asserting a false dichotomy:  This is a form of "all or nothing" thinking.  You claim that there are only two possible choices, which are mutually exclusive, then argue that if one is false, then other must be true.

 

4.  The Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus fallacy (false in one, false in all):  For example:  If any part of relativity is false, then it is all false.  Or more broadly, if I can show that one scientific theory is false, then they're probably all false.

 

I won't even mention the ad homs.

 

Routine resort to such fallacies tends to stigmatize one as a sophist and a polemicist.  Such people are generally just trying to win an argument, or to save face for the sake of appearances, irrespective of the "truth."  The old sophists took great pride in their ability to "make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger."

 

The more emotional a person is, generally the less rational they are.  Emotion is certainly not the only reason people resort to logical fallacies, but it is often a factor.

 

David Hume once painted a picture of two ideologues arguing with each other that I always found insightful and amusing:

 

“Disputes between men pertinaciously obstinate in their principles are the most irksome.  The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence in enforcing sophistry and falsehood and, as reasoning is not the source from whence either disputant derives his tenets, it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.”

 

 

Something you might want to give some thought to, Marcos.  I'm not trying to insult or demean you, just giving my honest opinion (and unsolicited advice).

Edited February 12, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Except as a simple contraction such as quantum entanglement suggests mathematically according to Pi as GR and SR and Newton all were, than it's not "LT" (the capitalization is incorrect a capital "T" is temperature and a capital "L" is a liter) aka Length x Time, it's Length^2 x Time!

im talking about LT, Lorentz Transformation .

I dont know what you are on about.

[marcospolo]

Hmmm, when did I ever draw that conclusion?

 

When your emotions entice you to make fallacious arguments (this straw man argument, for example), you lose credibility, and that's what I was talking about when I said you discredit yourself.

 

Here's few other fallacious arguments you seem to routinely favor:

 

1.  An Argument from Ignorance.  You display this in a couple of forms:

 

(I)  Because something hasn't been proven true, then it has to be false.

 

(II)  Because you can't prove that I'm wrong, then I must be right.

 

2. An argument from incredulity:    This is closely related to the arguments from ignorance.  Basically the claim is that because I don't (or refuse to) believe it, that proves it must be wrong.

 

3.  Asserting a false dichotomy:  This is a form of "all or nothing" thinking.  You claim that there are only two possible choices, which are mutually exclusive, then argue that if one is false, then other must be true.

 

4.  The Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus fallacy (false in one, false in all):  For example:  If any part of relativity is false, then it is all false.  Or more broadly, if I can show that one scientific theory is false, then they're probably all false.

 

I won't even mention the ad homs.

 

Routine resort to such fallacies tends to stigmatize one as a sophist and a polemicist.  Such people are generally just trying to win an argument, or to save face for the sake of appearances, irrespective of the "truth."  The old sophists took great pride in their ability to "make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger."

 

The more emotional a person is, generally the less rational they are.  Emotion is certainly not the only reason people resort to logical fallacies, but it is often a factor.

 

David Hume once painted a picture of two ideologues arguing with each other that I always found insightful and amusing:

 

 

Something you might want to give some thought to, Marcos.  I'm not trying to insult or demean you, just giving my honest opinion (and unsolicited advice).

Great list of fallacies.   I try not to use them myself.

Now just because I conceded that you are  less prone to getting pissed off than I, that does not mean you now stand on the high ground of scientific truth, and I don't quite.

Ive always suggested that there is no evidence for such and such theory, and the theory is irrational to boot. Then I state what I think is a better view, and acknowledge that they could be a number of other possibilities. When it comes to a case of A is correct, B is not, I look at the claim and in the case of SR, Ill always go to the B option, as ive already found that A cant possibly be correct. In SR there does not seem to be any other alternatives than its true or its all rubbish. It is balck and white.

 Actually my view on the errors of science, has never claimed that just because i found a problem with Einstein, then all of science is wrong. I never said that never suggested it and you are putting words into my mouth. In looking for reasons why Einstein is wrong, its totally possible that he was influenced by a bunch or prior theories, each of which could be wrong too. I said many times that Cavendish coming up with the value for the gravitational constant is crappy science if science at all.

The constant is use often in Physics and cosmology, yet its just pure speculation on Cavendish's part. No one has picked up on this statement, yet if correct, then how much of physics is on the wrong track today because of it?

 

And as far as my discussion with you on the usefulness of LT goes, you have not given much of a reply that amounts to anything. Basically you are staying with it not for any sound reasoning, but simply because you believe that some obscure observations seem to math up with it. Clocks slowing is about the sum of it. Not much to base a critical theory of Physics on, is it?

 

And I may not have read the specific paper you mentioned before, but I've read what the different experts have to say on LT, and I cant accept any of them for several reasons. I prefer to seek a better explanation than to accept a nonsensical one.

 

Usually you are able to give a good account for your views of Physics, yet when it comes to LT it seems to me that the convincing and logical statements from you have all dried up.

 

Here's the thing, You think you are right, the guys that argue with you think that are right, yet if any of you were applying the so called scientific method, someone would concede that one view is superior to the other, and adopt the better theory.  But no one ever does.

You never change, they never change, this sort of proves that no one knows whats going on really, or the truth would stick out a little bit more that flat out nonsense.

So from that perspective, my idea that all theories in Physics that have aspects of SR or GR or LT etc, will be also wrong, is a sound rational statement to make. You are never going to come up with a correct theory or equation when your basic underlying concepts include a series of errors.

 

I cant see why you think that unreasonable.

[marcospolo]

And if you can't handle an automated voice narrator in a video, here's a real person speaking in a video on why LT can not be valid. He clearly spends too much time playing with his slide rule, but appearance aside, what is wrong with his statements?

[marcospolo]

the text that goes with the video is:

 

Author: Professor Vesselin C. Noninski

 

Video demonstrates fatal inconsistency with physical reality of the results from the application of Lorentz transformations themselves, aside from their conflict with the Principle of Relativity, a conflict discussed in another video. Lorentz transformations affect the very core of theoretical physics. Therefore, the non-physicality of these transformations makes a profound revision of the main tenets of physics clearly unavoidable.

[Moronium]

Heh.  If I was gunna try to imagine what a crank looked like, I might well come across the picture of your guy which you posted above and decide that it fit the image perfectly

 

 

What's this guy's argument?

 

He claims he has the "absolute truth,"  reasserts that truth dozens of time, and, well, then, there ya have it!

 

Show me the "evidence" or coherent argument he provides, will ya?  It escapes me.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

Heh.  If I was gunna try to imagine what a crank looked like, I might well think come across a picture of your guy and decide that it fit the image perfectly

 

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

I haven't watched the video. "Argument by youtube" doesn't appeal to me, although I must admit I am guilty of having done the same once or twice. I try to avoid doing that now.

[Moronium]

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

I haven't watched the video. "Argument by youtube" doesn't appeal to me, although I must admit I am guilty of having done the same once or twice. I try to avoid doing that now.

 

 

Ya gotta watch the one I posted, Popeye.  It's less than 4 minutes, but you might get an hour's worth of laughs out of it, know what I'm sayin?

Edited February 12, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

What's this guy's argument?

 

He claims he has the "absolute truth,"  reasserts that truth dozens of time, and, well, then, there ya have it!

 

Show me the "evidence" or coherent argument he provides, will ya?  It escapes me.

 

 

In fact there can never be any experiment or testing whatsoever, including with GPS satellites, to verify Einstein's relativity because it contradicts absolute truth. (Vesselin C. Noninski)

 

 

Well, that sure made it easy for me.  I don't EVER have to pay any attention to any experiment or testing again.  I know it's false, a priori.

 

When you trot this guy out as a representative of the "scientific experts" you've studied and relied on, Marco, it becomes clear that your understanding of "science" is quite different than mine.

 

I have to assume that this guy's middle initial is short for "Crank."

Edited February 12, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Heh.  If I was gunna try to imagine what a crank looked like, I might well come across a picture of your guy and decide that it fit the image perfectly

 

 

What's this guy's argument?

 

He claims he has the "absolute truth,"  reasserts that truth dozens of time, and, well, then, there ya have it!

 

Show me the "evidence" or coherent argument he provides, will ya?  It escapes me.

Ok, so now you are judging the value of an argument according to what the guy looks like!  Very scientific,and not what I expected to hear from you.

Also, as he is very clear about WHAT exactly the "absolute truth" actually is, its clear that you either did not actually listen to him, or you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

A third option is that you are just not that smart, you cant put your own cherished ideas aside long enough to hear another point of view.

Fourth option is that you are exhibiting  cognitive dissonance, where you internally refuse to see black from white.

Fifth option is that he is just wrong, but it cant be that, as you admitted that you cant follow his argument. You never point out where his claims are incorrect.

 

But to give the other readers a clue, as apparently listening to plain English is hard to comprehend for Physics buffs, The "absolute truths" , well there are a couple that he states then proceeds to call them "absolute truth" or you can call them indisputable facts if you like.

 

One is that NOW is the same instant everywhere. He refers to Einstein's 1905 paper, where Einstein provides an example of many clocks, filling space. He said that they all are synchronized, that is their hands display the same time.  So Galileo and Newton believed this but apparently this guy is a crank.

 

Next he said that a rod, stationary of moving must exist in the ONE time moment. Its absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for each end of the rod to exist in different times.

 

So aparently this claim of "absolute truth" also makes him a crank.

 

I'm shocked and disappointed that you, Moronium, don't believe these two claims of this crank.

 

Please explain your version of reality that has "NOW" being variable from place to place, and  explain how in your little universe, one object has parts that exist in different times mutually exclusively.

 

I'm holding my breath waiting for this revelation. Should be good.

[Moronium]

Ok, so now you are judging the value of an argument according to what the guy looks like!  

 

Not at all.  Read my post.  Got anymore straw men you want to wind up?  Let me read the rest of your post.