Personal Topic

[A-wal]

Heh, nice try, chump.  I gave you many reasons why your "answer" is absurd.  I notice you have made no attempt whatsoever to address those comments.  Try to explain HOW "changing frames" causes clock retardation, why doncha?  What's the cause and effect relationship there, exactly?  Or is it just "magic?"  Do you think increased speed has anything to do with it, I wonder?

How does a clock that's in motion relative to your frame slow down (something you actually agree with)?

 

You can always just keep asking how to every answer. That's not a valid argument, it's a last resort for the terminally mistaken when they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Sorry chump. What a fcuking moron.

Edited March 18, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

How does a clock that's in motion relative to your frame slow down (something you actually agree with)?

 

If you knew a damn thing about SR, then you would know that the LT predicts that the moving clock runs slow, and says absolutely NOTHING about "changing frames."  But you don't.

 

For that matter, the LT also says nothing about being "relative to your frame."  The faster an object moves, the more its clock slows down, without regard for any particular frame, except for a motionless frame.  The motion it contemplates is absolute, not relative.  If you're in a moving frame, then the LT tells you that the other (motionless, or slower) clock is faster than yours, not slower.

 

That's exactly what the LT is telling the space twin in the twin paradox.  But the stupid chump, as mandated by SR, insists that he's not moving when he is.  That's why he's wrong.  That's also why SR is wrong.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The predictions of the LT have been verified to many orders of magnitute, many times.

 

But ONLY when they are applied as their designer, Lorentz, intended them to be applied.  But that is NOT the way SR applies them, after stealing, then butchering, them.

 

Read my posts 885 & 886 in this thread for a fuller explanation.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-53

Edited March 18, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Are you deliberately being this thick or can you honestly not help it?

The LT is for objects that are in inertial motion relative to each other, it shows the time dilation and length contraction of each object in the frame of the other object because each are in motion in the other's frame.

The difference in age when they meet back up in the same frame occurs if one of them changes frames (causing the other observer's watch to speed up from the perspective of the accelerating frame) while the other one remains inertial.

 

This how the model works. You can deny its validity all you want but only by inserting a preferred frame into a model that doesn't use one.

Edited March 18, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

SR doesn't make any kind of contradictory claims simply because it never contradicts itself, it has nothing to do with it being proven. 

 

This is your standard (and virtually your only) form of totally fallacious "reasoning," Awal.  You make an unsupported assertion, then make that same assertion your conclusion (with no need for evidence).  The fallacy is called "begging the question."

 

Premise:  SR is correct.  Conclusion:  Therefore, SR is correct.

 

A completely hollow tautology, with no substance whatsoever.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The LT is for objects that are in inertial motion relative to each other, it shows the time dilation and length contraction of each object in the frame of the other object because each are in motion in the other's frame.

 

The difference in age when they meet back up in the same frame occurs if one of them changes frames (causing the other observer's watch to speed up from the perspective of the accelerating frame) while the other one remains inertial.

 

This how the model works. You can deny its validity all you want but only by inserting a preferred frame into a model that doesn't use one.

 

1.  Wrong.  When properly applied, the LT applies to all motion, whether inertial or accelerating.

 

2.  Wrong.  There is no causal relationship between changing frames and clock retardation.  When one has moved, then he has changed frames, sure.  But it is the movement which causes the clock retardation, not the necessarily incidental change of frames.  Any fool would know that if he knew ANYTHING about SR.

 

3.  The model doesn't work, but I agree that SR ridiculously asserts that clock retardation is reciprocal, and therefore supposedly prohibits the use of a preferred frame (a prohibition which it ignores in its own operations).

 

4.  What "works" is a model which posits a preferred frame (which SR itself is forced to do in order to get the correct answer in the twin paradox).  The GPS demonstrates this millions of times every day.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The LT is for objects that are in inertial motion relative to each other..

 

.

The reason that SR is restricted to inertial frames is that it completely falls apart in any absolute frame.  Even according to SR, acceleration is absolute, not relative, motion.  In such frames the speed of light is not constant, clock retardation cannot be posited to be reciprocal, etc., so SR cannot be applied.  But this has nothing to do with the LT, per se, only the defects in SR as a theory.

 

But a PFT treats all motion as absolute, so there is no need for it to single out inertial frames as it's only domain.  It therefore makes accurate predictions in places where SR is forbidden, by it's own absurd premises, to go.  Of course a PFT also makes accurate predictions in all inertial frames too.  A PFT employs the LT as they were designed to be employed.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 You can deny its validity all you want but only by inserting a preferred frame into a model that doesn't use one.

 

You're finally showing a small inking of understanding with this statement.

 

Except that you're not.  Your obvious implication is that since SR claims it doesn't permit preferred frames (even though it routinely uses them), then theories which do are conclusively ruled out of consideration.

 

Just more of your tautological assertions which are completely devoid of substance, justification, reason, and logic.  You are completely disabled by your own ill-informed, yet fanatical, ideology.

 

Positing a preferred frame "inserts" nothing into SR.  It totally denies, rejects, and discards the basic premises of SR, that's all.  As far as any hope of correspondence to the physical world goes, SR is a fatally flawed and obviously mistaken model.  As the GPS (and much other empirical evidence) demonstrates.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

 I really can't be arsed to read through all of your ridiculous ramblings so I just read the last paragraph.

 

Positing a preferred frame "inserts" nothing into SR.  It totally denies, rejects, and discards the basic premises of SR, that's all.

Presenting an alternate model that uses a preferred frame is one (highly dumb but perfectly acceptable) thing, inserting a preferred frame into SR and then pathetically trying to claim that SR contradicts itself because of it is quite another.

 

As far as any hope of correspondence to the physical world goes, SR is a fatally flawed and obviously mistaken model.  As the GPS (and much other empirical evidence) demonstrates.

You've made this same batshit claim over and over. GPS does not in any way suggest that there's a preferred frame. In fact it shows that the only way there possibly could be a preferred frame is if the Earth just happens to be at rest in that frame, something that could only ever seem to make sense in the geocentric view of an insane religious nutjob such as yourself.

 

Suck it chump!

Edited March 18, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

Suck it chump!

 

 All you do is continue to display your vast and willful ignorance, your illiteracy and, your inability to understand even the most elementary propositions, Awal.  What else is new?

 

For just one example, you don't even understand this:  For each and every calculation of velocity effects it makes, SR establishes a preferred frame; an aether; a frame of reference which is completely at rest with respect to everything else in the universe.  You think otherwise because you would believe anything SR or it's high priests tell(s) you, no matter how irrational, inherently absurd, counter-factual, or outright self-contradictory it is.  You are totally incapable of any independent thought.

 

What a sucker. You can convince a chump of just about anything, with one exception: You can never convince him that he's done been played.

 

You've made this same batshit claim over and over. GPS does not in any way suggest that there's a preferred frame.

 

 

Read post 885, Mr. Illiterate. Not that you're the least bit capable of understanding it, but others might be.  If they disagree maybe they can present some actual arguments to support their disagreement, which is something you are utterly incapable of doing.

 

Using the ECI as a preferred frame for calculations relating to objects on or near earth does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, suggest that the universe is "geocentric," as you naively and mistakenly claim.  This is just another simple matter which is far above your "pay grade."

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The time transformation t = t′ in Eqs. (3) is deceivingly simple. It means that in the rotating frame the time variable t′ is really determined in the underlying inertial frame. (Ashby, as quoted in post 885)

 

Even if you could comprehend nothing else Ashby says, this alone tells you that the GPS treats time (and hence simultaneity) as absolute, in total repudiation of Einstein's postulation of "local time" as the "true time." It is, however, completely in accord with Galileo, Newton, Lorentz, Poincare, and many others, including modern theoretical physicists who have received Nobel Prizes in physics, such as Smoot.   Put another way, the GPS adopts the external synchronization employed by a PFT, and (with the exception of the preferred frame) otherwise totally rejects the "Einstein synchronization" employed by SR.

 

What Ashby refers to here as "the underlying inertial frame" is just another way of saying the "preferred frame."

 

But, in your case, Awal, it's clear that you cannot even comprehend those two basic english sentences, let alone the far-reaching implications of those two sentences.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Okay, all clocks just lost an hour for daylight savings. 

 

That post is more relevant here than it might seem at first blush, eh, Dave.  It is quite common for SR adherents to confuse displays on clocks with "time itself."

[Moronium]

But you don't believe in math.

 

I know why the hours go by 12s.

 

Of course I "believe in" math.  But I also understand its nature and its limitations.

 

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (Albert Einstein, 1920)

 

Why do hours go by 12's?  Because 15 degrees times 12 = 180 (half of a complete rotation)? Stated that way, the earth is rotating at the rate of 15 degrees per hour. After 12 hours, a given point is completely opposite (in terms of its relationship to the sun) of where it was 12 hours ago (noon versus midnight). In another 12 hours, it will be noon again. It's all very arbitrary, actually.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This so called CLASS SEPARATION, ends

 

I will reign knowledge down upon all of you, the secret knowledge, the 26 digit number in meters per second knowledge until my pain goes away

 

 

Heh, it that you with yet another new handle, Polly?

[GAHD]

Heh, it that you with yet another new handle, Polly?

[A-wal]

For just one example, you don't even understand this:  For each and every calculation of velocity effects it makes, SR establishes a preferred frame; an aether; a frame of reference which is completely at rest with respect to everything else in the universe.  You think otherwise because you would believe anything SR or it's high priests tell(s) you, no matter how irrational, inherently absurd, counter-factual, or outright self-contradictory it is.  You are totally incapable of any independent thought.

This has to be the most pathetic attempt at an argument you've tried to come up with yet. The fact that you're free to use any inertial frame to measure relative motion with time dilation and length contraction depending on motion relative to that frame means that by definition there is no preferred frame. This certainly doesn't lead to any contradictions, it seems like it does only to idiots who can't get there head around more than one frame.

 

You think that time dilation and length contraction are absolute, frame independent but that requires that there be one master frame that all motion is relative to. Experiments show that if there is one then Earth would have to be motionless in this frame which would be a crazy belief.

 

Read post 885, Mr. Illiterate. Not that you're the least bit capable of understanding it, but others might be.  If they disagree maybe they can present some actual arguments to support their disagreement, which is something you are utterly incapable of doing.

It's painful enough trying to get through your nonsensical bs as it is, I'm certainly not going to hunt down more of it. The gps only supports the idea of a preferred frame if the gps is at rest in that frame, and as I said that would be an insane belief.

 

Using the ECI as a preferred frame for calculations relating to objects on or near earth does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, suggest that the universe is "geocentric," as you naively and mistakenly claim.  This is just another simple matter which is far above your "pay grade."

You can't use the ECI as a preferred frame and then say that your not using a geocentric model. Using a preferred frame by definition means that it's the only frame that can be used to measure absolute motion. If you're free to use any inertial frame than there is no preferred frame.

 

It makes absolutely no sense to claim that SR uses multiple preferred frames. I repeat, the fact that you're free to use any inertial frame to measure relative motion with time dilation and length contraction depending on motion relative to that frame means that by definition there is no preferred frame.

[Moronium]

This has to be the most pathetic attempt at an argument you've tried to come up with yet. The fact that you're free to use any inertial frame to measure relative motion with time dilation and length contraction depending on motion relative to that frame means that by definition there is no preferred frame. This certainly doesn't lead to any contradictions, it seems like it does only to idiots who can't get there head around more than one frame.

 

You think that time dilation and length contraction are absolute, frame independent but that requires that there be one master frame that all motion is relative to. Experiments show that if there is one then Earth would have to be motionless in this frame which would be a crazy belief.

 

It's painful enough trying to get through your nonsensical bs as it is, I'm certainly not going to hunt down more of it. The gps only supports the idea of a preferred frame if the gps is at rest in that frame, and as I said that would be an insane belief.

 

You can't use the ECI as a preferred frame and then say that your not using a geocentric model. Using a preferred frame by definition means that it's the only frame that can be used to measure absolute motion. If you're free to use any inertial frame than there is no preferred frame.

 

It makes absolutely no sense to claim that SR uses multiple preferred frames. 

 

 

"This certainly doesn't lead to any contradictions."  It leads to endless contractions and "paradoxes," all of which never arise when you us a preferred frame theory.

 

"You think that time dilation and length contraction are absolute, frame independent but that requires that there be one master frame that all motion is relative to."  As I've already said, it doesn't mean that at all.  All your statement means is that you don't even understand the concepts being discussed.

 

"It's painful enough trying to get through your nonsensical bs as it is, I'm certainly not going to hunt down more of it. The gps only supports the idea of a preferred frame if the gps is at rest in that frame, and as I said that would be an insane belief."  As I said before, willful ignorance.  You refuse to read a word of an academic scientific paper.  Instead, you deny all science and just make one absurd assertion after another, as though they are self-proving.  Do a little research sometime, fool, and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

"It makes absolutely no sense to claim that SR uses multiple preferred frames."  I agree that SR makes no sense because it does exactly that.

 

Positing an infinite number of "motionless" frames, all of which are also presumed to be moving relative to the others, does indeed mean that any statement made by SR about motion, relative or otherwise, is totally non-sensical.  Under those circumstances it cannot predict or "know" anything about motion.  Despite this, it pretends to. 

 

But the point here remains true, to wit:

 

For each and every calculation of velocity effects it makes, SR establishes a preferred frame; an aether; a frame of reference which is completely at rest with respect to everything else in the universe.  You think otherwise because you would believe anything SR or it's high priests tell(s) you, no matter how irrational, inherently absurd, counter-factual, or outright self-contradictory it is.  You are totally incapable of any independent thought.

 

 

For someone, like you, with no fundamental understanding of elementary logic, cognitive dissonance is impossible.  You could contradict yourself a million times and never have any clue that you did.

.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium