The OP is not about Science? What about the title of your topic?
I can’t help watching someone bravely taking on all comers, regardless of whether he’s right or wrong.
My behaviour can be assessed by reading the threads, PhysBang. It’s good behaviour.
All: for the record, this is the only other place I’ve been banned from, and it’s a particularly graphic example of online censorship. Check the offence/suspension links above and you’ll see I was suspended for “refusing to answer questions” thence banned for being “uncivil”. But when you read the posts, you can see I answered over 100 questions, and was a model poster faced with a barrage of insults. Here’s where I got up to the 75th question from just one poster: post #103. I was warned in advance that the trick at Baut when faced with a serious challenge backed with evidence and references is to to hurl a barrage of specious questions then give infractions for not answering questions, and to hurl abuse and penalise any retort in kind. But I decided to go ahead, and feel it was a useful exercise.
This is exactly the argument I made again and again. You must know this, since you claimed again and again in reply to my posts that the flashes were nonetheless simultaneous in all reference frames. You offered no argument as to why this would be the case that included details of the motion of your flashers. All this is there in the thread, so we can see just how wrong your statement above is.
Sure, because in every religious debate, one side wants to see the mathematical details of the other side.
But as I said before, one cannot debate someone who will simply ignore what an opponent writes or change his or her response inconsistently between questions.
With respect Carleas, the issue is one of orthodoxy and censorship rather than mistakes. You should read up on this, starting with say Brian Josephson’s story. That’s Brian Josephson of Josephson junction fame, Nobel Laureate. He’s a member of the Institute of Physics. You should email him and ask him about it.
True, but don’t forget that the title of the piece is “Martin Rees makes a religion out of science so his bishops can gather their tithe”. The content includes “justified by faith not reason”, “no scepticism is admitted to this new orthodoxy”, “to criticise science teaching is little short of blasphemy”, and “Rees stuck to the party line that forbids him to say that £7bn and thousands of scientists buried under a Swiss mountain might have been better employed on energy research.” It doesn’t concern censorship in physics but it definitely draws parallels between science and religion, and in the light of scant progress within fundamental physics in recent decades, I fear things could go very badly downhill from here. So whilst I think James has picked the wrong target in relativity as opposed to say branes and the holographic universe, I feel he has a very serious point in highlighting mainstream dogma. I’d venture to say that attempts to discredit him rather than address his case only reinforce this point.
It is not about what Science is or isn’t by its definition, but rather how the online arguments are identical in form to the religious arguments against the atheist.
That was my experience as well, although I didn’t get banned, but was warned that if I kept arguing, I would be banned. Doc Al is the most obvious culprit. When he enters a thread, once he gets tired of arguing, regardless of how many others might want to continue (as one stated to me on my thread), he just locks the thread and/or bans the person. Its a little hard to tell for sure whether it is due to him sensing that he is about to lose or he just feels that the site is only there for him so when he is tired, he just shuts it down (narcissism).
Again, many other smaller religious sites do that quite often.
No, that is what you first merely asserted, no argument. And that is why I first thought you were going to follow that train of logic, so I asked you to explain why you thought that and gave a little of why I thought it would have to be so (should have been enough of a clue). But the only argument you could give was that your holy scriptures proclaimed it and I should go drink the coolaid and come back when I could see your colored lights. I began to propose my version of why they had to be in sync when you came up with the absurd notion that the reason your chemistry class experiment got different results than the others was because their desks were in a different locations in the room. With THAT, you proved with certainty that you have no idea what the reasoning behind relativity of simultaneity actually is.
I asked you to show me exactly what you think Einstein said that led you to believe such an absurd idea. And exactly like a Bible literalist, you quoted an out of context verse that you misunderstood to mean that no two events could never be in sync if they are separated by any distance or time, “spacetime”. That is not what he meant by what he was saying in your quote. And frankly even if it was, merely by trying to apply his equations to the scenario, you would discover that your version could not be correct. As Carleas pointed out, the point to discussion is to get into the reasoning of what you believe, not merely quote passages and attempt to condemn the unbelievers.
After that point any arguing with you was obviously going to be pointless. I asked you to show your math/logic. You apparently couldn’t, just as I confidently suspected. You had merely memorized certain ideas that you misunderstood and some equations that you have plugged in to some prepared homework problems and thought you actually knew something. Calrid and Xunzian had to come and help you try to save face, again merely defending the realm with attempts at slander and obfuscation.
If you seriously want to continue that debate in a civil manner, I suggest that you find the real math/logic that leads up to the conclusion that you suggest without merely quoting your scriptures, because you misunderstand what you have memorized (religious people do that a lot). If you follow them accurately, I won’t have to say much more, if anything at all.
If you are going to drink the coolaid and pass it around, find out what is in it.
Real logic apparently contradicts all available experiment in the real world too. Your logic is nonsense and you’ve been repeatedly told why (I explained in terms of experiment how your logical assertion was out of kilter with actual observation, I also explained why all things being equal relativity would also agree that simultaneity is the result, hence your whole argument being based on a particular case that does not apply to the whole theory) but you continue to ignore me and any other point that contradicts your specious nonsense. You claim your questions haven’t been answered but they have several times by several different people on several different threads. When faced with a refutation though you just ignore it, presumably because it’s inconvenient.
Again this is all just a waste of time you can’t answer any questions without making excuses but I’ll ask again: if your logic is so airtight why does it contradict all real world experiment? Why does the Michelson-Morley experiment show a lack of accordance with aether theories, why do atomic clocks on fast moving vehicles show discrepancies in time. Why do clocks placed on tall buildings go out of synch with those closer to the Earth. Why is everything you say out of kilter with actual science? Logic without a foundation in reality is just sophistry, and frankly that’s all you have. Show us the money, talk is cheap. Relate to me any experiment in science that supports your view? This isn’t quoting scripture this is fundamentally what science is, showing how there is a consensus amongst experiments that shows that your views are not subjective.
The only dogma here is yours and it is a cult of one, don’t need to prove anything, don’t need to challenge current experiment, just saying things are so is all that is needed according to some faulty axioms. This isn’t science this is proselytising.
The forum is first and foremost an educational tool, the last thing students or those learning about the subject need is people relating specious theories that bare no relation to reality and confusing the issue. It’s not censorship its just having standards. You were just failing miserably to make a case and repeatedly making stupid assertions despite being shown to be in error. There was no educational purpose to watching you show us your lack of understanding of the subject, and no point in you repeating your faulty assumptions. Why should people indulge you anyway? Patiently explaining why you are wrong, only to have you ignore their points or fail to understand them over and over again.
Your martyr complex doesn’t help your case here.
Oh yeah? I haven’t found that to be true.
Go to that thread and explain your REASONING. Stop saying that you already have, because you have not shown ANY “reasoning”, only quoted scriptures or testimonials (what you are calling “real experience”).
As usual, you acuse the other of your own guilt. What excuse have I ever made concerning anything?
Like I said, “testimonials”. You could have said the same thing to Einstein and probably would have.
Maybe for the same reason everything everyone has said was “out of kilter” until they eventually “saw the light”?
Yes, but you just keep repeating it anyway.
Interesting constraint. Did you say that to Einstein? Do you somehow think that all he said was absolute non-sense until someone eventually found a way to prove it? Does his logic change upon empirical evidence? They don’t even bother to experiment to prove something until AFTER they go through the logic. All I am asking is that any one of you sheeple go through the logic and stop misquoting holy scriptures.
And there you go again. This is the thread for that non-sense demonstrating your religious mindset. What dogma have I stated at all?? You and the other cultists are the ones doing all of the dogmatic quoting.
Exactly my point. That is why I asked for you to show the math/logic of your objection. You don’t seem to be able to do so. You are too interested in merely spreading the “good word” of scientism and chasing out the unbelievers (even if they are actually supporting the cause).
Then you haven’t seen the experiments and are in no position to comment.
Clocks placed on tall buildings go out of synch. Clocks placed on fast moving planes go out of synch. Global positioning systems have to be adjusted to special and general relativistic concerns or they go out of synch. Explain to me why this is the case? Is that real world enough for you? Experiments like yours that experience lack of simultaneity in co moving vehicles are in accordance with special relativity. The Michelson Morley experiments which have been done countless times dispute aether theoreis.
I’ve gone thorugh the logic as it relates to both theory and real world experiment as have several other people but you ignore it and go on making the same specious points and ignoring all available evidence.
already done, your logic isn’t supported by any real world experiment and is thus guff. It only applies to very specific situations that are also explained by relativity. Hence they do not reflect anything or enable you to make any conjectures on the general cases.
This is very poor.
Oh, and you have?
Actually I did already. I suspect you are too impetuous to read all of the posts.
“And there were dozens of witnesses that SAW Jesus walk on the water and walk out of the garden.”
Absolute bull.
Calrid, try to realize that your brain is actually designed, by whatever means, to do far more than merely run your mouth.
Get on that thread and show YOUR step by step logic that would require that the two clocks MUST experience asynchronous flash. Quoting holy scriptures and prophets or appealing to testimonials does nothing to help your brain do what we call “thinking”. Try it (over there). It is supposed to be SCIENCE, not faith or religion. Can you spell that word, “S-c-i-e-n-c-e”? You might learn to enjoy the experience.
I think you’re missing the point here… you don’t propose a hypothesis out of the blue and then go and look for ways to test it.
You propose a hypothesis to explain things you have ALREADY observed and then test it against competing theories in areas where they would predict different outcomes.
So think of the question as “What observable phenomena is it that you want to explain? What observable phenomena are you adressing?”
Hypethetical events don’t count… of course.
The only narcissism here is yours. You were not actually arguing with Doc Al or anyone else there; multiple people pointed out your basic mistakes in reasoning and you refused to listen to them.
No, I said that you could make up any bizarre scientific theory that you wanted, but that your peculiar theory would not be special relativity. I then directed you to a reference that demonstrated exactly what special relativity said and exactly how one derives the relativity of simultaneity. I provided references with simple explanations of the relativity of simultaneity because you haven;t read anything about it. It is clear that you have never actually read anything on the subject of the relativity of simultaneity because you are so amazingly ignorant of it in your writings.
It is narcissistic to argue against a theory that you have never read.
My argument was that people doing the same physical actions at different locations and times got their results at different locations and time. You could not even understand that.
I quoted you a section from a chapter he wrote demonstrating the relativity of simultaneity. That’s about as in-context as one can get! Did you read the chapter? I’m guessing no, since your writing continues to be absurd.
I know that “my version” would not be correct for your scenario because your scenario violates special relativity with its very assumptions. This is because you do not understand how to use the reasoning of special relativity and this is because you have never taken the time to learn it.
I think it’s quite clear now that you are simply slinging bizarre and obviously false accusations at me in order to deflect from your own failures in that thread. You should be the one actually presenting a detailed mathematical description of your own scenario. (You have claimed to have almost received a mathematics degree, but you have demonstrated no mathematical ability, even in the very basic mathematics required for your scenarios.) For me, and anyone who has ever read anything about special relativity, it is enough that you violate the relativity of simultaneity with the assumptions of your scenario.
If you have anything besides ignorance to offer in your original “stopped clock” thread, you would deliver on the details of your scenario. However, you have little but insults.
So I take it that it is your position that those who did such experiments actually experience delusions when they get their results? Or is it your position that the people who did these experiments actually lied about their results?
prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/i2/e020401
Are these people liars?
You can probably do this experiment yourself for under 200 euros. Have you?
It isn’t true Caldrid. I’m sorry, but it really isn’t. Yes, James is mistaken about relativity, but he isn’t mistaken about the time travel and the parallel worlds and the parallels between religion and theoretical physics. It’s far worse than you think. What’s your field? Would you like to talk about something in particular? On say another thread? Then maybe I can demonstrate how bad it is.
You propose a hypothesis to answer a question as long as the question displays logic. Apparently my question displays logic else you would be using logic to answer it (assuming you can use any logic of course… I have yet to see the evidence).
But note that they were actually attempting reasoning. When you attempt reasoning, you still have to watch for conceptual details that they were missing. I over estimated their ability to see their own concept mistakes. HERE, you guys merely sling mud and claim your own superior education in Science. You are the religious fanatics of scientism, not even knowing what it is that you are worshiping.
You might want to lookup the word “narcissism” before you use it. Although by your history, it is clear that you use far too much imagination when you read anything technical.
No, your argument was entirely about simultaneity and that two events could never be in sync if they were separated by “spacetime”. That was the only issue on the table. Again, you skew the facts to protect EGO.
EXACTLY like a literalist quoting his misunderstanding of the Bible. And you might want to look up what “out of context” means too.
The point is for you to prove special relativity, not merely quote chapter and verse from the book being deposed (probably should look up that one too). SHOW YOUR Math/Logic.
Illusions from presumption, just exactly as they said of Michelson-Morley and all those before them.
Then take the challenge. Everyone is all willing to claim how I am wrong, yet none have the courage to actually prove it with anything other than “But our scriptures say you’re wrong. Witnesses SAW him walking on the water. They wouldn’t LIE”. Farsight, you are good at explanations. You should be able to explain the paradox.
I thought I did, James, with this post. We didn’t discuss it adequately because PhysBang employed the “hostile barrage” technique as a distraction and to turn off other contributors. If you do respond to the points everybody yawns, if you don’t you lay yourself open to accusations. You really must read that Robert Close paper, and relate it to “affectance”.
Hmm… why doesn’t anyone understand that you CANNOT presume as premise special relativity in order to prove it for the same reason everyone complains about the religious using the Bible to prove God.
Once again, the similarity between the arguments from public Science and religion are identical in EVERY way.
It’s no presumption James. You measure the local speed of light to be the same regardless of your motion. That’s the evidence, and the essence of special relativity. Mathematical expressions like 1/√(1-v²/c²) are correct, but not for any mysterious reason. The reason is simple, and it’s obvious, because the supporting evidence is there in pair production and annihilation. We are in essence “made of light”, much as Close says with his matter waves in The Other Meaning of Special Relativity. This is the telling point, on page 15:
“What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time”.
But what does any of that have to do with the paradox situation? The mechanics of the proposed paradox has to be examined so as to point out at what point something would not “be right”. Up til now, other than you, all have merely said, “oh but the flashers would not be simultaneous”. And their only excuse is, “Einstein said”. Just as you have pointed out with many other examples, Einstein didn’t really say what they are thinking. Simultaneity issues do not really apply and if someone thinks they do, they really need to prove why they would.
I 100% agree with that. Again, it is merely due to no one actually thinking, but rather just seeing an equation and plugging it in to every hole until they go blind.
No you didn’t you have yet to explain why time dilation appears to be born out in experiment and absolute time seems to be at odds with all experiment.
That’s not an answer to the experiment, that is merely an evasion, why then do aether theories fair so badly in experimental testing? No one saw Jesus walk on water, they are all dead but the Michelson-Morley experiment has been run hundreds of times and in all set ups it disputes your theories. This isn’t a matter of faith its a matter of scientific evidence. Yours is lacking, hence your suppositions are merely faith not the other way around.
I have and so have others, the fact you choose to ignore reality in favour of something that doesn’t fit it means your assumptions are logically flawed.
If only you would practice what you preach and actually refute the empirical evidence instead of saying the same thing over and over in the face of it as if what you are saying was actually born out by the real world.
The only conclusion I came to was that all things being equal two frames would experience simultaneity, I explained why in accordance with a rotational transform, apparently though although differences in frames produces a discrepancy this simple empiricism is beyond your grasp. Your problem is you are denying reality and all real world experiment without showing any experiment that could refute relativity. Your train experiment simply says nothing more than that all things being equal relativistic equations should produce a simultaneity, which they do. The only way you distinguish your ideas would be to set up an experiment where all things weren’t equal and then observe the results. Since doing this tends to lead to discrepancies in clocks as shown in the above experiments (which you claim to have never heard of despite them all being easy to find on almost any web page on the subject or in any magazine or journal you’d care to name). Thus your logic is flawed, your axioms are demonstrably false and worse don’t distinguish themselves at all in your set up.
We don’t we say that if our hypothesis is true then it should be born out in experiment. We then set out to create and experiment where we can test absolute time against relative time. In absolute time clocks should show no discrepancies regardless of experimental set up or frames of reference, in relativistic scenarios they should be out of synch. That’s it if one is true according to experiment the other must necessarily be false. All you have to do to overturn it is show one scenario where Einstein’s equations don’t relate to experiment, to my knowledge no one has done this, but I am all ears if you know of any. The same cannot be said for your own dearly held convictions, which apparently only require faulty axioms and arm waving. And we are supposed to believe you based on this? Why? because you say something must be how it is, even though it isn’t born out by actual experiment? Your asking us to trust not our senses and our measures but some logic that appears in experiment to be contradicted by what we see and measure. This is foolish and unscientific, it’s not logical or pragmatic either.
No amount of insult about me or anyone else is going to change the physical nature of reality, nor subsume the wealth of evidence there is that supports it. Science isn’t about talking the talk it’s about practical applications in real situations. You have provided none.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson% … experiment
Do you dispute these experiments results? If so why and how are the experiments flawed? If you could gives us an analysis of the experiment and tell us why it does not constitute evidence I am all ears?
Note: relativity was never meant to dispute all ether theories just ones that explained the motion issues in terms of a medium that had a discernible drag effect on light. hence the use of the word ponderable medium which had an actual effect on lights speed of propagation e.g. Maxwell’s Luminiferous Aether.