Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Good point, Amp, you read some of what I write and don't understand any of the math so you can make an informed decision based on that. That's why you're a member in good standing with the three brain tremors.

[Moronium]

I've finally figured out what Monotonium's problem is;

 

. So Moronium's brain short-circuits when I say I accept the facts of relativity but not the theory. To him, it is one and the same thing. 

 

You know nothing about  SR, Ralf.  And indeed it is you who can't distinguish facts from theory.  You take the predictions of SR and selectively accept some of them as facts, all while purporting to reject the theory which predicts them in the first place. Your definition of "fact" just boils down to "whatever I choose to believe."  Your M.O. is to completely ignore and deny any and all empirically established facts which you don't think are consistent with your stupid "theory."  Even calling it a "theory" is stupid, but with your grandiosity you can't even see that.

 

The Lorentzian theory likewise establishes no "facts."  It does, however, lead to extremely accurate predictions which are totally consistent with all known facts but which  are totally inconsistent with both the premises of SR and the predictions made by SR.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

QED

[Amplituhedron]

Good point, Amp, you read some of what I write and don't understand any of the math so you can make an informed decision based on that. That's why you're a member in good standing with the three brain tremors.

 

I don't understand any of the math? It's YOU who doesn't understand the math. A-wal explained to you WITH MATH why you need both time dilation and length contraction to keep c constant and you IGNORED IT. 

 

Your pathetic little pretense of being a math wizard, which you are not, is your defense mechanism to try to make you feel superior to others. You do this over and over again. 

 

Address A-wal's MATHEMATICAL POINTS, math whiz!

Edited March 24, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[ralfcis]

I did but obviously neither of you tremors read it as usual.

Edited March 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

I had been touting a theory a few posts back that...now my previously faulty view was...

 

 

Your "theory" changes every day.

 

 

All these methods and more are dependent on where you got brainwashed but none are correct. Only mine is correct...

 

And every time you change it's always completely correct--until the next day when it isn't.

 

I'm just thinking about all the math I've got to chug through in order to wrap this thread up... This could take another fn year to finish.

 

 

Now, suddenly, you say you're a year away from presenting a theory.

 

No one else takes you the least bit seriously.  That's not in question.   The real question is:  How can you possibly take yourself seriously?

Edited March 24, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

I did but obviously neither of you tremors read it as usual.

 

Ha ha ha ha!

[Amplituhedron]

Your "theory" changes every day.

 

Yes it does. He has been doing this crap for years. He will make a big long post and the next day he will admit that he ****ed up. It's amusing.

 

As for you, you seem like a smart guy. No idea what your problem with SR or GR is.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[ralfcis]

You still can't read.  I'm proud that I'm open minded enough to make tweaks and explore new ideas that often don't pan out. Parrots can't do that because their knowledge is set in stone. I'm not a year away from presenting a theory, I'm a year away from verifying it under a good number of scenarios. It may need some more tweaks along the way but the math is tedious and I'm error prone. How long did it take Einstein? 10 yrs? So I'm doing it in about half the time. Are you irked yet? Please look into some remedial reading courses and maybe some basic math to increase your literacy to a working level.

Edited March 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 No idea what your problem with SR or GR is.

 

And you don't care to know.  If you did, you would have read my previous posts.  I've spelled it out, in great detail, many times.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Yup, Amp, Moronium is a smart guy. That about says it all.

Edited March 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

. I'm not a year away from presenting a theory, I'm a year away from verifying it. It may need some more tweaks along the way but the math is tedious and I'm error prone. 

 

 

This from the guy who says he won't accept anything that isn't "proven" by math (as though math is even capable of proving anything except tautologies).

 

This from the guy who has the audacity to call a half-baked assertion which both denies known facts and is logically inconsistent to boot, a "theory."

 

You really flatter yourself.

[ralfcis]

Yes, I'll keep you apprised of my progress. And once I'm confident I have all the bugs out, I'll make my final presentation on a forum that has experts in relativity. From what I've seen so far, I'm pretty confident although I've said that numerous times in the past. The core has been pretty strong throughout that time. Wish me luck.

Edited March 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

This from the guy who says he won't accept anything that isn't "proven" by math (as though math is even capable of proving anything except tautologies).

 

This from the guy who has the audacity to call a half-baked assertion which both denies known facts and is logically inconsistent to boot, a "theory."

 

You really flatter yourself.

 

Yes, math is a bunch of tautologies, that is right. It may or may not have anything to do with observed reality. And yes, I have read your posts objecting to SR, but can't make sense of them, sorry. 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[ralfcis]

" but ca't make sense of them, sorry. " There's a shocker.

[Moronium]

And yes, I have read your posts objecting to SR, but can't make sense of them, sorry. 

 

 

Do you have any dispute with, question about, or any comments about any post I've made?  I mean other than the ones I've already addressed, without any response from you.

 

Can you make any "sense" of post 885 in this thread, for example?  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-53  Can you make any sense of what the physicist who is a recognized expert on the GPS says in that academic paper?

 

How about post 886? 

 

Maybe you can't.  That wouldn't surprise me.  But if you claim you can "make sense" of them, what do you think is wrong?  Can you even understand the facts about how the GPS works, or is that beyond what you can "make sense" of?

 

Are you just going to take the same position, without any rationale whatsoever, as Awol?   He flatly denies that the GPS uses a preferred frame theory, and renounces SR, in the face of the fact that every knowledgeable physicist on the planet would admit it.  Is that also your way of saying you can't "make sense" out of clearly articulated statements of fact?

 

If Ralf says "it doesn't make sense," then that means, in his narrow mind, that it is, and can only be, "nonsensical."  If he, being the most knowledgeable and brilliant person in the whole world, can't make sense of it, then, by God, nobody can.  Of course it's also clear that Ralf wouldn't know "sensible" if it was pounded into his head with a 20 penny nail and a 32 oz framing  hammer.   Is that your attitude, too, Amp?  It certainly seems to be Awol's, wanna make it 3?

 

If you have any further comment, you can make it in that thread.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Why don't you two lovebirds set up a booth somewhere else.