Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

You'll never understand the difference between minkowski "spacetime" and Newtonian 3 +1.  Or between Lorentz and Einstein.  You don't even care to.  Why pretend?

Because Ive already stated that I accept Lorentz and not Einsteins theories BECAUSE Lorentz uses absolute time.  BUT I ALSO REJECT  Lorentz theories because they infer that an imaginary frame of reference can affect physical objects.

I wont even mention Minkowski, spacetime or Newton, as you are behaving like a big child now.

 

The truth is probably that I have touched a raw nerve with you and slowing clocks, explaining that it cant be true, or conversely it is true, but then in that case, one must discard Absolute Time.

Instead of discussing the issues, you prefer to pretend you cant follow my argument, (its a simple argument at that) or as a backup, just insist that I don't know what a clock is or something equally stupid.

 

Ive read what Newton, Minkowski, Einstein and Lorentz had to say about time and space and I admit you have clarified exactly what Lorentz was on about better than others have.  Now after looking at those as options, I am with Newton, no other theories interest me.

 This is not the same as not understand the differences between these theories.

 

I just don't accept these these guys had a good grasp of reality themselves. As evidenced by the amount of garbage present in Physics as a consequence.

[Moronium]

 

The truth is probably that I have touched a raw nerve with you and slowing clocks, explaining that it cant be true, or conversely it is true, but then in that case, one must discard Absolute Time.

 

 

 

 

Hahaha, OK.  What you have "explained" is that you can't grasp the concepts.

 

You don't have to agree with them to understand them.  That aint the point.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

When you repeatedly claim said that "time itself" changes in Lorentz's theory, you are clearly misunderstanding something.  He insisted that it did not. Others agree with him on that point.  Even if they don't agree, they understand the difference.  You don't.

 

Lorentz and Poincare, just to name two, were brilliant mathematicians and physicists, and they did not make a simple mistake in analyzing the implications of the LT, which they created.

 

If you were one-tenth as brilliant as you seem to think you are, you would make Einstein look like he should be riding the short bus.  Sorry, but you aint.

OK, in some instances, I'm using the Lorentz equation as Einstein did, meaning  that its under conditions that Lorentz himself did not agree with.

I do or did tend to lump Lorentz equations in with Einstein, because that's how they are used today.

But whether I do or not, I still don't agree with Lorentz on everything. The fact that he insisted on an Absolute Time is great in my opinion, but that does not mean that I have to buy into all his stuff or I don't understand it.

 

As I said, you have clarified what Lorentz really thought about space and time, and its good. Thanks, but although his ideas are way better than the rest, I'm not going to become a Lorentzian.

 

The fact that you cant see any possibility that Lorentz made any mistakes shows me that you don't dig deep enough, You are still scratching around with the wording and punctuation on the surface.

[marcospolo]

 

 

 

Hahaha, OK.  What you have "explained" is that you can't grasp the concepts.

 

You don't have to agree with them to understand them.  That aint the point.

exactly what Einstein Relativists response is, word perfect, are you becoming one of them?

[Moronium]

exactly what Einstein Relativists response is, word perfect, are you becoming one of them?

 

I'm simply stating facts.  You are talking about things you don't understand.  You think you have "proved" things merely because you assert them from a position of ignorance.  You have made no coherent case whatsoever for your claims, but you think you're "logic" is self-evident and irrefutable.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

You have grasped the concepts perfectly, yet the contradictions and errors remain just the same.

[marcospolo]

I'm simply stating facts.  You are talking about things you don't understand.  You think you have "proved" things merely because you assert them from a position of ignorance.  You have made no coherent case whatsoever for your claims, but you think you're "logic" is self-evident and irrefutable.

Well its all subjective. There is no objectivity in Physics.

I make a series of statements, and instead of showing where each statement is wrong, its sufficient to simply claim that I don't know what I talking about.

What makes you subjective logic better than mine?

I saw no refuting of my statements, only "I don't follow you" .

 

At least Ive responded to each and every one of your statements, with a reason and the logic as to why I disagree, as well as the times when I do agree.

Edited February 16, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

Well its all subjective. There is no objectivity in Physics.

I make a series of statements, and instead of showing where each statement is wrong, its sufficient to simply claim that I don't know what I talking about.

What makes you subjective logic better than mine?

I saw no refuting of my statements, only "I don't follow you" .

 

At least Ive responded to each and every one of your statements, with a reason and the logic as to why I disagree, as well as the times when I do agree.

anyway, I can also claim that you are ignorant, have no logic and are incoherent. Your arguments make no sense and I cant follow your ramblings. There settled, I'm right! and you may as well read the womans weekly instead of science papers.

This is the correct way to sort out issues.  Oh, I forget, there are no "issues", its just that I don't understand what some guy from 1894 really, truly was thinking.

Edited February 16, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

Look, I'll say it one more time.  You are free to utterly reject Lorentz theory.  That's fine.

 

But to say the his math proves that "time itself" is changing just proves that you don't even understand what you are "rejecting."

 

Your so-called "arguments" are neither logical nor coherent.  There is no way to respond to them in a rational manner.

 

I try to see what your assumptions might be, but they are never set forth.  I can only guess.  You are misunderstanding something badly.  You don't care what it might be, so why should I?

[marcospolo]

at which point did my logic escape you?

You never bothered to say, "what this here about?"

I only use the assumptions that are already set out by those I am criticizing.

I'm not making any new hypothesis, just pointing out the reasons why the existing theories are not workable.

Why do I need assumptions of my own? I went to some length to explain that the problems i notice in Physics are probably cause by assumptions.

So you say that you have plowed through Einsteins 1905 paper, and easily followed his logic, but you cant follow my simple plain English logic?

You cant even hazard a guess as to what I'm on about?, The whole transcript is just a jumble of meaningless words randomly plonked on the page with no underlying schema?

 

Great, now not only can't I understand what length and distance are, but I'm a raving lunatic as well!

[Moronium]

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it:

 

1.  Minkowski:  Lengths don't change, distances (space) do.

      Lorentz:  Distances don't change, lengths do.

 

2.  Minkowski:  Clock rates don't change, time does

     Lorentz:  Time doesn't change, clock rates do.

 

There's a lot of people who can't seem to understand that fundamental difference, Marco, and you're one of them.

 

And by "understand" I don't mean understand the words.

 

I mean understand the concepts, and how they apply.

[marcospolo]

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it:

 

1.  Minkowski:  Lengths don't change, distances (space) do.

      Lorentz:  Distances don't change, lengths do.

 

2.  Minkowski:  Clock rates don't change, time does

     Lorentz:  Time doesn't change, clock rates do.

 

There's a lot of people who can't seem to understand that fundamental difference, Marco, and you're one of them.

 

And by "understand" I don't mean understand the words.

 

I mean understand the concepts, and how they apply.

Great, so now we see what is the huge differences between two the two camps. But this is only interesting if you think that either of the may be correct.

As far as I am concerned, they are both wrong, but fighting over details.

 

I don't have a single second to consider what Minkowski thinks. No point in comparing him to Lorentz.

 

Lorentz has to stand on his own, and I don't think his rational for deriving his transformation was valid.

Its that simple.  I still agree with some important things about Time for instance, that Lorentz also believes, but that the end of it.

 

Why do I need to fully grasp every little point about what Lorentz thinks anyway?

Ive been working backward to the source not following along from the start with these theories.

That means that I look at the outcomes, and decide if they are beneficial or somehow creating problems, then decide if the theory is maybe useful.

Every theory will have repercussions down the line. But if those repercussions end up making a mess of things, then the chances are that something was amiss with the theory.

 

Anyway, I'm about finished here with this discussion, we are at the end.

[Moronium]

Obviously, you don't have to understand a damn thing.  Little things, like the GPS couldn't function without using the LT, for example.

 

Just like a geocentrist doesn't need to understand the concept of the earth rotating or orbiting the sun.  Why should they bother?  They don't believe it, and never will.  It's patently false, a priori. The earth doesn't, and simply  cannot, move. It's impossible. They already know THE TRUTH.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

actually come to think of it, you said that you cant follow how changing ones point of view could solve the problem.

You seemed to think there would still be the problem, and you could not follow my logic.

 

I just realized you cant follow logic very well at all! Its NOT me, Its you!

 

If I say I have a big Problem, its nearly Christmas and my Chimney is too small for Santa to get down it. The problem is not enough time to make the Chimney larger.

 

And I say, forget about it, there is no Santa, its all imaginary.

 

But you say, "That's not helping to solve my problems now is it?  The Chimney it still too small and there is so little time!

 

This is exactly what I was saying about Minkowski, Einstein and Lorentz, Pointcare,... they were trying to solve problems that were imaginary.

I told you to wake up and smell the roses, but you still thought the problems were real!

 

PLUS, Lorentz and Einstein and others, because of their train of thought, were expecting some change to be noticeable in either time, or space, (distances) Lorentz went the clocks changing route, Minkowski went with space changing, and Einstein went time changing. This was all over trying to figure out a non existant problem with the M&M experiment.

So they were expecting or hoping that someone would find evidence to support their theories.

Some hoped to see a difference in time, enter the "observed slowing of clocks" as per Einstein's AND Lorentz's theories.

 

This is curious, as its similar to the faked observations of light bending around the gravity of the sun.

And the faked observations recently of the CMB and the LIGO data.

 

Physics is infested with fake, bogus claims and evidence. Look at the Piltdown Man... Science is full of frauds, and here we have some of the best, Einstein, Lorentz and Minkowski. Birds of a feather.

[marcospolo]

And finally, I mentioned several times that Cavendish's measuring of the Gravitational Constant is BS. But never got a single bite.

The Gravitational Constant is used throughout cosmology and in a bunch of other places in Physics etc, but its just a BS number.

If this does not make you doubt the "truth" claims of modern science, nothing will..

 

but we can be confident that as Einstein predicted, moving clocks really do slow down!

[Moronium]

Clearly you are more brilliant than any physicist who ever lived, Marco.  All of them putting together, actually.

 

Congratulations!

[marcospolo]

Obviously, you don't have to understand a damn thing.  Little things, like the GPS couldn't function without using the LT, for example.

 

Just like a geocentrist doesn't need to understand the concept of the earth rotating or orbiting the sun.  Why should they bother?  They don't believe it, and never will.  It's patently false, a priori. The earth doesn't, and simply  cannot, move. It's impossible. They already know THE TRUTH.

GPS .. of course it can function without LT.

shows how much you have looked into it.

 

You are like the geocentrist yourself, in that you believe that Minkowski, Lorentz and Einstein were onto something, so you already have the truth, and any bizarre evidence claims that support these crackpot theories MUST be true!