Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

Horse hockey

 

 

Ya think?  Good luck with that.

[ralfcis]

Could you go pick on iumMoron on another thread? Any one he's been on that he hasn't yet closed will do because he just repeats the same stuff over and over on every one. I want to see this thread go to its conclusion without being shut down before the end.

 

I've already tried to explain the difference between subjective and objective to no avail.

Edited March 9, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Each clock does not objectively run slower than the other -- that's the whole bloody point! There is no objective, frame-independent point of view about which clock is "really" correct. Holy F, man, that is the whole point of the theory! You are a piece of work!

 

Hahahahaha.  So SR says nothing can be known about anything, eh?  No predictions are possible.  There simply is no objective reality.

 

Like I said, that's not physics, sorry. It's not any kind of science. It is full-blown solipsistic philosophy.  No more, no less.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

As Kierkegaard said, when you label me, you disable me but when you use solsticeptic to label everything, that's a mic drop.

[Moronium]

As Kierkegaard said, when you label me, you disable me but when you use solsticeptic to label everything, that's a mic drop.

 

 

Apparently you don't know what solipsism is, eh, Ralf?  Nothing unusual there. Learn up, boy.

[ralfcis]

You've only explained it 50 times and it's only another meaningless label when you use it. Somehow that's your ace in the hole. Look everyone, I'm smart, I know what solisptastic means.

[Moronium]

 I know what solisptastic means.

 

You'd be more convincing if you could spell it, Ralf.  What does it mean?

[Amplituhedron]

Hahahahaha.  So SR says nothing can be known about anything, eh?  No predictions are possible.  There simply is no objective reality.

 

Like I said, that's not physics, sorry. It's not any kind of science. It is full-blown solipsistic philosophy.  No more, no less.

 

Are you actually serious? Or are you just trolling? Surely you aren’t really this dense, are you?

 

SR and GR are about nothing BUT predictions, the most successful predictions known to the theoretical science, along with QM!

 

SR and GR do NOT say there is no objective reality — just the opposite! In fact, Einstein wanted to call the theory of relativity the theory of invariance — because that is what it is!

 

My god, how can anyone be so stupid! SR simply, and predictively accurately, changed the terms of what is invariant — under Newton, it was presumed to be time and space; under Einstein, it is c in vacuo. Empiricism proves that Einstein wins, Newton loses. I am sure Newton would be awed, astounded and grateful to Einstein, if Newton could be brought back to life, and he would congratulate him on superseding the instrumentally useful Newtonism.

 

The theory of relativity, as you idiotically seem to think, is NOT about the relativity of reality.

 

Good god, why I am I wasting my time with you? Go get an education!

[Moronium]

You'd be more convincing if you could spell it, Ralf.  What does it mean?

 

Here, Ralf, I'll have mercy on you and spell it out for you (not that you'll ever understand, but others might benefit)

As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. This extreme position is claimed to be irrefutable, as the solipsist believes themself to be the only true authority, all others being creations of their own mind.

 

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question rather than actually false. Further, one cannot also be certain as to what extent the external world exists independently of one's mind. For instance, it may be that a God-like being controls the sensations received by one's brain, making it appear as if there is an external world when most of it (excluding the God-like being and oneself) is false. However, the point remains that epistemological solipsists consider this an "unresolvable" question.

 

In contrast to solipsism. realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

 

Physical science is based on a presumption of realism.  It wouldn't, and couldn't, exist as a science without that presumption.

[Moronium]

SR and GR do NOT say there is no objective reality

 

 

You said it:

 

Each clock does not objectively run slower than the other -- that's the whole bloody point! There is no objective, frame-independent point of view about which clock is "really" correct.

 

 

 

Which is it?

[Moronium]

 

. Empiricism proves that Einstein wins, Newton loses. 

 

 

Hahahahaha.  Empirical tests confirm that the Lorentz transformations (which Einstein stole from Lorentz) hold good.  

 

However all relevant tests also prove that the reciprocal time dilation posited by SR is FALSE.

 

Nice try.

[Moronium]

It's a little strange, Amp  First you admit that SR has no correspondence to physical reality.  Then you add that SR holds that there is no objective reality.

 

THEN you want to say SR has been "empirically proven."

 

I guess that only a person like you, who is so patently oblivious his own self-contradictions, would be so quick to call a reasonable person stupid so repeatedly.

 

Another mark of a true solipsist, sho nuff.

 

...the solipsist believes themself to be the only true authority, all others being creations of their own mind.

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

It's a little strange, Amp  First you admit that SR has no correspondence to physical reality.  Then you add that SR holds that there is no objective reality.

 

THEN you want to say SR has been "empirically proven."

 

I guess that only a person like you, who is so patently oblivious his own self-contradictions, would be so quick to call a reasonable person stupid so repeatedly.

 

Another mark of a true solipsist, sho nuff.

 

No, I said that SR is an idealized approximation of physical reality, which Einstein himself knew to be incomplete, because, as I noted, why do you think he went on to develop general relativity? Of course you ignored this point, either because you are a troll, or else incorrigibly stupid. You also ignored the central point that ALL theories are approximations -- useful to a limit. Hence, the pessimistic meta-induction.

 

I did NOT say that SR holds that there is no objective reality -- just the opposite! Cannot you not even read properly, or, again, are you just trolling? I said that relativity disproved the Newtonian conception of absolute, frame-independent space and time, which is NOT the same thing as saying there is no objective reality. Are you really too dense to grasp this?

 

SR and GR HAVE been empirically demonstrated -- for more than 100 years! 

 

May I suggest that you revise your user name to delete the last three letters of it?  

Edited March 10, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[Moronium]

Of course you ignored this point, either because your are a troll, or else incorrigibly stupid.

 

 

 

No, I didn't.  I specifically responded to it. You ignored my response. Did you do that because you are a troll, or just because you are incorrigibly stupid?

[Moronium]

SR and GR HAVE been empirically demonstrated -- for more than 100 years! 

 

 

No they have not.  And if you knew anything about science, or scientific demonstration, you would at least know that.

 

SR is NOT the Lorentz transformation.  Nor is it the only theory of relative motion to use the LT.  As a matter of fact the LT were created to explain a theory of relative motion with postulates that are antithetical to those of SR.

 

The LT have been confirmed.  SR, as a theory, has been disconfirmed.

 

You really don't even know what you're talking about.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I did NOT say that SR holds that there is no objective reality -- just the opposite! Cannot you not even read properly, or, again, are you just trolling?

 

 

 

You said exactly that and I have quoted your exact words a couple of times to boot.  You apparently can't even read or understand your own words, let alone others.

[Moronium]

I said that relativity disproved the Newtonian conception of absolute, frame-independent space and time,

 

 

SR "proved" no such thing.  It merely asserted it as a hypothetical postulate which CANNOT be proven.  Again, you just display your rank scientific naivete.