Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[MacM]

----------------
Cranks have these virtually universal characteristics:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.
5. No discernible sense of humour.

In addition, many cranks

1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
2. stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
3. compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
4. claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.

Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, almost always

1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding mainstream belief.
-----------------

Acknowledgments:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...en-astronomy-pictures-of-2008/#comment-141464

Note: this comment was originally applied to the poster OilIsMastery, who has been banned from sciforums, but it sounds a lot like MacM too, don't you think?

WOW. Thanks for the morning laugh. Now lets go over these points.

******************************************************
Relativists have these virtually universal characteristics:

1. They overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of common folk that raise logical questions of their faith based system of physics.

2. They insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important proving their view even though the discovery may have numerous alternative explanations. That is the data is not exclusively correct to only their view..

3. They NEVER acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.

4. They love to talk about their own beliefs, often interjecting inappropriate or negative innuendo about their challenger, they are bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

5. They have No discernible sense of humour.

In addition, virtually all relativits.

1. seriously misunderstand the opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,

2. stress that they have proven their ideas for over 100 years, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, thousands of higly educated experts cannot all be wrong.

3. compare themselves with Einstein, implying that the mere "Counter Intuitive" nature of relativity is in itself evidence of plausibility, and the basis for others incapable of their elevated intelligence to understand.

4. claim that their ideas are being attacked ONLY by people that are cranks, , ignorant, in complete disregrd for the individual education, experience and achievement. That is the minute a physicist turns on relativity he becomes labled and shunned.

5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique intelligence.

Relativists always,

1. exhibit a marked lack of common sense and ability to think outside the mainstream box and are limited to reciting mere theory,

2. misunderstand or fail to use standard logic or common sense,

3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding any alternative belief.

Acknowledgments:

James R poster on SCF

Note: this comment is applied to posters James R, Billy T and others here that have merited recognition for slander, dogma, rhetoric, negative innuendo, distortion, off topic and irrelevant posts that NEVER address the issues raised, it sounds very appropriate don't you think?

 

[DRZion]

A SHORT POINT ABOUT RELATIVITY

Assuming that time does in fact dilate with speed, reaching light-speed would not only violate the laws of relativity, but also laws of thermodynamics. At light-speed, time freezes and so does molecular motion. To an observer this would very much imply absolute zero, with 0 thermal radiation and/or molecular movement.

 

[quadraphonics]

A SHORT POINT ABOUT RELATIVITY

Assuming that time does in fact dilate with speed, reaching light-speed would not only violate the laws of relativity, but also laws of thermodynamics. At light-speed, time freezes and so does molecular motion. To an observer this would very much imply absolute zero, with 0 thermal radiation and/or molecular movement.

That's not a problem for thermodynamics, but rather quantum mechanics.

And, yeah, Relativity and QM are known to be incompatible as-is. Figuring out how to reconcile them is a big open problem in physics.

 

[Billy T]

A SHORT POINT ABOUT RELATIVITY

Assuming that time does in fact dilate with speed, reaching light-speed would not only violate the laws of relativity, but also laws of thermodynamics. At light-speed, time freezes and so does molecular motion. To an observer this would very much imply absolute zero, with 0 thermal radiation and/or molecular movement.

I understand your argument but do not think it correct. I think you must, of necessity, speak only of the limit as your mass of molecules at temperature T (say T is the melting point of lead with half the mass liquid and half solid in equlibrium) approaches the speed of light. I contend that T does not decrease even at 99.99999999999999999999% of speed of light as:

(1) In some some other frame, the one moving so fast wrt to you, that half liquid / half solid lead is at rest and still at T or half liquid and half solid. The same material can not be all solid (less than T) or all liquid (greater than T) in different frames. Point (1) Summary: Temperature does not change with speed, not even in the limit as speed of light is approached. Physics is the same in all inertial frames, even ones moving very fast wrt you. That means the melting point of lead is the same as handbook printed temperature in all frames. (and a lot of other things related to SR, such as cesium energy levels and thus cesium clock tick rates in their own frame, etc, but I am no longer posting on that here - leaving the thead to the SR rejectors.)

No one can say what would happen if the mass of lead were taveling at the speed of light - perhaps it turns to gold or green chesse?
We will never know as it will never happen.


(2) From an atomic POV, T being the average KE, which is related to the square of (dx/dt) their speed, both dx and dt of the lead's rest frame described in terms of your frame's meter and seconds have changed but the same factor so that in all frame the speed of each and every molecule or atm is unchanged. I.e. from this atomic POV also T is unchanged.

PS
Note that if space did not contract, (2)'s approach would NOT agree with (1) so the fact that a given mass of half liquid lead / half solid lead exists as half liquid / half solid in all frames is strong proof of space contraction.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

1. They overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of common folk that raise logical questions of their faith based system of physics.

Firstly it isn't 'faith' if you've got empirical evidence. Secondly, can you name one person in the last 100 years whose contributed to theoretical physics in a major way who didn't have a formal education in science, aka 'common folk'.

3. They NEVER acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.

A flat out lie. Just because you are not in the physics community doesn't mean you can just assume what you like about how we operate.

. They love to talk about their own beliefs, often interjecting inappropriate or negative innuendo about their challenger, they are bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

Patience soon gives way to exasperation when cranks resort to lying and simply making up claims about how physicists and physics works. If you're in the right you shouldn't need to resort to lying, yet you just did.

5. They have No discernible sense of humour.

Again, just because you don't know any of us personally doesn't mean we're humourless robots. Your only interaction with us is to say "You're an idiot for believing 100 years of relativity, it's obviously wrong" and being immune to any and all rational discussion. If someone walked into your place of work everyday and just threw insults at you about how crap you are at your job and you're a sucker if you have put in any effort to learn any skills for your job would you be jolly with them? Don't piss on people's shoes and then expect a hug.

2. stress that they have proven their ideas for over 100 years, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, thousands of higly educated experts cannot all be wrong.

Again, you lie, either through ignorance or bias. Relativity has been experimentally verified to be very very very close to how Nature behaves, such as to 1 part in a billion for some phenomena. That is not the same as proving relativity is how nature behaves, that's impossible due to the limits of experimental observations. If you don't understand the distinction, don't make ignorant claims. If you do grasp the distinction, don't lie.

3. compare themselves with Einstein, implying that the mere "Counter Intuitive" nature of relativity is in itself evidence of plausibility, and the basis for others incapable of their elevated intelligence to understand.

You won't find many physicists who think they're comparable to Einstein. The vast majority of the leading people in theoretical physics are very humble. Green, of string theory fame, will not call the result he's famous for 'The Green-Schwarz mechanism', even though every textbook, paper and conference proceeding call it that, he called it something innocuous like "The string anomaly cancellation method". Cranks mistake confidence for blind arrogance. It's not that we believe we're all knowing, just more knowing than cranks. And noone claims the counter intuitive nature of some physics is a reason to believe it, only that it's naive to expect all physics to be intuitive.

4. claim that their ideas are being attacked ONLY by people that are cranks, , ignorant, in complete disregrd for the individual education, experience and achievement. That is the minute a physicist turns on relativity he becomes labled and shunned.

Not true, it's just that the vast vast majority of people who turn on relativity never understood it in the first place and attack things which are easily defended. 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 the person who is attacking relativity doesn't know much about it and attacks what is basically a result of their ignorance. The few learned people who turn on relativity seem to split into 2 groups, utter nuts (and plenty of people do go a little nuts later in life) or a valid methodology. MOND or Horava gravity are two areas which have received considerable interest. Infact, Horava gravity was 'the big thing' last year on ArXiv, it got more papers written about it than many mainstream ideas.

So again, you simply make a claim you either haven't tried to check or have and are willing to simply lie.

5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique intelligence.

Again, cranks mistake confidence for blind narcissism. I know a decent amount about quantum field theory, enough to answer pretty much any qualitative question a layperson could ask. This ability doesn't mean I believe I'm all knowing but it will seem to the layperson I know more than I actually do because they don't know enough details to probe into areas of QFT which I don't know so much about. Invariably cranks attack or whine about pretty well known areas of physics, after all if something isn't well known outside the science community a crank won't know about it since they refuse to do any learning on their own. Hence almost any issue a crank brings up can be easily addressed, which the crank might view as us thinking we are omniscience. No, we just have more knowledge and experience on the topic to address anything a layperson can ask. If cranks spent less time whining and more time reading they'd find plenty of actually relevant and open questions about the validity of various parts of physics, but they never so.

1. exhibit a marked lack of common sense and ability to think outside the mainstream box and are limited to reciting mere theory,

So by your logic the last 90 years of scientific advancement, with all the technology it's brought, was a fluke? This is another thing with cranks, because they are always so uninformed about pretty simple, basic concepts in a theory they are constantly being corrected on them, discussions never get to topics at the 'bleeding edge' of research (where out of the box thinking is done by mainstream people) because cranks don't know enough. Cranks are generally sufficiently ignorant that the only things they ever grasp or learn anything about are so simply they've been part of the mainstream for decades, which means their conversations centre on such topics. Kaneda, over in the astronomy forum, complains I never tell him anything he couldn't read in a book, but that's because he's so ignorant of cosmology he's failed to learn what's in a book so I need to keep telling him. Any offer to discuss my research with him, to show I've got a creative side to my physics ability, is refused because he won't understand it. If he knew quantum field theory and GR we could discuss my work. But instead we're stuck with me having to tell him that there's more evidence for the big bang than just the CMB, despite that being information he could get from Wiki, if he only tried. The bottle neck in discussions when it comes to progressing to more imaginative and new work is the crank.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Ignoring the bullshit to concentrate on the issue at hand.

As I pointed out earlier, it is impossible to set up a system in which the person is killed in one frame but not in others. Events in spacetime that happen must happen in all frames.

Correct which is why I have shown SR to be false. Your statement doesn't include a resolution for the fact that given a control mechanisim that pulls the trigger if detonation is not simultaneous MUST kill the observer in one frame and not the other.

You have completely neglected to provide any details of the control mechanism you propose.

Let me do your work for you once again. Suppose I sit somebody in the box with the TNT, holding a gun and a hostage. I instruct him: "If TNT A and TNT B explode at the same time, shoot the hostage." Sure enough, the experiment runs and he shoots the hostage. Now, here's the crux: A person watching from the ground will AGREE that the hostage was shot. Get it? Even though the ground observer DOES NOT see the two TNTs explode at the same time. Because it is not him making the decision to shoot or not to shoot; it's the guy in the box.

There is NO problem in this for special relativity. You have shown none because you cannot show a problem. Your useless gasbagging doesn't make a jot of difference.

 

[phyti]

I think you mean both at set to zero accunulated time at the start (on any equal value, such as 100,000 seconds) They cannot be "synchronized" in any other sense if time dilation does exist, so in future, please avoid speaking of the false concept of clocks in different frames a "synchronized" if you agree on this point.
Yes & yes.

They are synchronized to read the same before they separate!
In the future, use a dictionary, and refresh your comprehension skills!

In simple terms, all the while that it was inertially moving every 100 ticks it accumulated correspond to more than 100 ticks in the stationary frame (the one that never had any acceleration)

This sounds like you are saying the moving A-clock runs slower.

PS after posting by edit:
I see QQ has actively returned. I recommend you seek knowledge about SR at any college or by reading any physics book, but not here as I will join the many others who know SR well and have already ceased tpo post here. I.e. I will not post more here.

I recommend you not be so presumptuous.

The example is: the fact that the A-clock physically reads less time, demonstrates a physical process altered it while moving. This is in contrast to your comments about clocks not being physically altered. The fact the clock runs at the same rate in its own frame, is the observer is altered by those same processes.

Thanks for a non answer.

 

[MacM]

AlphaNumeric;2342149,

Thank you for helping me make my following points:

1. They overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of common folk that raise logical questions of their faith based system of physics.

2. stress that they have proven their ideas for over 100 years, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, thousands of higly educated experts cannot all be wrong. ”

Again, you lie, either through ignorance or bias. Relativity has been experimentally verified to be very very very close to how Nature behaves, such as to 1 part in a billion for some phenomena.

True but you deliberately ignore the assertions of SR that have not been tested and cannot be tested which falsifies SR as valid theory.

reason to believe it, only that it's naive to expect all physics to be intuitive.

5. They have No discernible sense of humour.

You pathetic fool. I responded to James R's baseless attack on me with a tit-for-tat and you get offended. Well to damn bad. Perhaps I need to add your name to the list at the bottom.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Ignoring the bullshit to concentrate on the issue at hand.



You have completely neglected to provide any details of the control mechanism you propose.

Let me do your work for you once again. Suppose I sit somebody in the box with the TNT, holding a gun and a hostage. I instruct him: "If TNT A and TNT B explode at the same time, shoot the hostage." Sure enough, the experiment runs and he shoots the hostage. Now, here's the crux: A person watching from the ground will AGREE that the hostage was shot. Get it? Even though the ground observer DOES NOT see the two TNTs explode at the same time. Because it is not him making the decision to shoot or not to shoot; it's the guy in the box.

There is NO problem in this for special relativity. You have shown none because you cannot show a problem. Your useless gasbagging doesn't make a jot of difference.

And your re-writting the scenario such that it doesn't work also is useless.

I stipulated that each frame had a control and if that control saw detonation that was NOT simultaneous then it triggered the gun shot.

Now by your own calculations one frame sees the detonations as simultaneous and hence the ovserver survies the physical test.

But in the other frame you admitted that the observer sees the detonations as NOT simultaneous because of contraction such that the observer gets killed.

Clearly if he gets shot then he is shot in all frames but the issue is that the physicas are different in the two frames causing conflict as to if he gets shot.

Now address that conflict and stiop trying to rewrite your way out of this pickle.

 

[MacM]

This sounds like you are saying the moving A-clock runs slower.

You will find that Billy T flip-flops all over the place. He says one tricks slower but then tht tehy all tick the same. Then he says time dilation isn't real but an artifact of lorentz contraction. That is since the traveler went less distance he accumulates less time while all clocks are ticking equally.

Basically he loves to hear himself talk and pretend to teach. He never listens however.

 

[MacM]

Now for a bit of clarification.

How many times have you seen James R swear there are no such things as preferred frames?

How many times have you seen him assault me when I suggested that perhaps the CMB might be such a frame?

To many to count. You bet.

How many times have you seen him attack me for posting a paper from a "Rag", a non-mainstream journal properly peer reviewed according to him.

Virtually every thread.

That is the easy way out after all, just ignore all evidence that is in disagreement with your intrenched ideas.

Well the following is from one of his preferred journals that has peer review. From Princeton:

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/hardy_prl_68_2981_92.pdf

******************** Extracts ***********************
Consequently, if we consider a run of the experiment for which both D+ = 1 and D- = 1, then the trajectories calculated in frame F+ contridict those calculated in F-............

The way out of this is to have a preferred frame of reference...................

However it should be pointed out that, although the gedanken experiment we have discussed suggests a preferred frame of reference, it canot be used to tell us which that preferred frame is. ..............................

One posible candidate for this special frame of reference is the one in which the cosmic background radiaton is isotropic. ...........................

However, other than the fact that a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics requires a preferred frame and the cosmic background radiation provides us with one, .....................

******************************************************

Now he is going to cry foul because this has to do with quantum mechanics, not Special Relativity. But I point out that while I agree SR asserts "No Preferred Frames", that is entirely different than James claiming "There are no preferred frames".

I in fact have attempted to make that point. That is that because preferred frames ARE being used it is no longer SR but LR.

When he recites SR as proof of SR he is placing SR into a position of being uncontestable and is ignoring the reality of the physical world around him and in turn assaults those that suggest he is being narrow minded.

It seems QM is the more recent advance in physics as of this date and QM requires preferred frames. So if preferred frames exist it is assinine to continue to swear they don't exist just because Einstein thought so.

It is time to acknowledge that they shift from SR to LR when they consider "Frame Switching" to eliminate the reciprocity inherent in SR. It is time to acknowledge that the ECI frame used by GPS is a preferred frame inconsistant with the application of SR.

 

[James R]

MacM:

And your re-writting the scenario such that it doesn't work also is useless.

If you'd made yourself clear in the first place then I wouldn't have to make assumptions.

I stipulated that each frame had a control and if that control saw detonation that was NOT simultaneous then it triggered the gun shot.

So, we have the guy on the ground holding a gun at the hostage's head and the guy in the TNT box pointing his gun out the window at the hostage as the box flies past. Their instructions are to shoot the hostage if the detonations are not simultaneous.

The experiment runs and this is what happens. The guy in the box doesn't shoot his gun because he sees the explosions occur simultaneously. The guy on the ground shoots the hostage. End result: dead hostage. And both the guy in the box and the guy on the ground AGREE that the hostage was shot by the guy on the ground.

Why you imagine this presents ANY problem for relativity is a complete mystery. It's so very simple that even you should be able to understand.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Regarding the paper you linked to, it is apparent that you don't understand what it is about. The authors are looking at alternatives to standard quantum theory, such as theories that have "hidden variables". They refer to these as "realistic" theories not because standard quantum mechanics is "unrealistic", but because they involve real trajectories of quantum particles. They claim to have shown for these "realistic" theories (i.e. not standard quantum theory) that there may be a preferred frame of reference.

This is all highly speculative, given that most physicists do not accept these "realistic" theories in the first place. One of the reasons physicists are not jumping to embrace such theories is precisely because of the kinds of problems raised by them. In this case, one such problem - lack of Lorentz invariance combined with non-locality - is highlighted.

Because you are incapable of understanding this paper, you have taken its various statements about preferred frames completely out of context. Note the dishonest quote-mining and cutting out of relevant material in the following extracts:

******************** Extracts ***********************
Consequently, if we consider a run of the experiment for which both D+ = 1 and D- = 1, then the trajectories calculated in frame F+ contridict those calculated in F-............

The way out of this is to have a preferred frame of reference...................

However it should be pointed out that, although the gedanken experiment we have discussed suggests a preferred frame of reference, it canot be used to tell us which that preferred frame is. ..............................

One posible candidate for this special frame of reference is the one in which the cosmic background radiaton is isotropic. ...........................

However, other than the fact that a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics requires a preferred frame and the cosmic background radiation provides us with one, .....................

******************************************************

All those dots are essential parts of the paper that MacM has deliberately and dishonestly left out, so as to pretend that this paper says something it does not.

What this paper says is NOT that there are preferred frames. It says that IF quantum mechanics can be described by a "realistic" theory AND that theory is non-local THEN it MAY be the case that there is a preferred reference frame, which MAY be the cosmic background radiation frame, although the authors admit there's no way they can tell for sure.

In short, MacM, your lies and distortions about this paper merely act to further lower your reputation here rather than to help you make your case.

My advice in future is don't meddle with stuff you can't understand. Every time you do that you end up looking even more stupid.

 

[MacM]

MacM:



If you'd made yourself clear in the first place then I wouldn't have to make assumptions.



So, we have the guy on the ground holding a gun at the hostage's head and the guy in the TNT box pointing his gun out the window at the hostage as the box flies past. Their instructions are to shoot the hostage if the detonations are not simultaneous.

The experiment runs and this is what happens. The guy in the box doesn't shoot his gun because he sees the explosions occur simultaneously. The guy on the ground shoots the hostage. End result: dead hostage. And both the guy in the box and the guy on the ground AGREE that the hostage was shot by the guy on the ground.

Why you imagine this presents ANY problem for relativity is a complete mystery. It's so very simple that even you should be able to understand.

The problem is not that he is shot . He will be seen to either survive or die in all frames but the issue is the physics for him getting shot (at least in my automatic controls scenario) the equipment has the same rules of engagement and in one frame he is shot and in the other he is not.

i.e. - The physics are NOT the same in all frames.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Regarding the paper you linked to, it is apparent that you don't understand what it is about. The authors are looking at alternatives to standard quantum theory, such as theories that have "hidden variables". They refer to these as "realistic" theories not because standard quantum mechanics is "unrealistic", but because they involve real trajectories of quantum particles. They claim to have shown for these "realistic" theories (i.e. not standard quantum theory) that there may be a preferred frame of reference.

Not true. They did not say "may" they said "required". Further I really don't need to fully grasp all details the issue is the existance of preferred frames which you deny exist and for which they have determined are required for viable views of QM.

This is all highly speculative, given that most physicists do not accept these "realistic" theories in the first place. One of the reasons physicists are not jumping to embrace such theories is precisely because of the kinds of problems raised by them. In this case, one such problem - lack of Lorentz invariance combined with non-locality - is highlighted.

I am not surprised that you and others resist such new work but the key point here is that what I have said is no more incorrect than some mainstream work that is published in your acceptable journal. To them you merely say it is skeptical but to me you like to assert ignorance. I suggest that is unsupported bias in your attitude.

Because you are incapable of understanding this paper, you have taken its various statements about preferred frames completely out of context. Note the dishonest quote-mining and cutting out of relevant material in the following extracts:

All those dots are essential parts of the paper that MacM has deliberately and dishonestly left out, so as to pretend that this paper says something it does not.

False. I linked the full paper for anyone wanting to review it. I shortened the extracts to the key point of my claim and added ....... to alert readers of the paragrph being cropped. That is about as honest as you can get without posting the entire lengthy paper which this site discourages.

While I have repeatedly attempted to make the point that the GPS ECI frame IS a preferred frame and hence SR is NOT used, you have consistantly spouted off the SR rhetoric that there are no such things as preferred frame.

That is simply a lie. Any frame that provides a preference of function is a preferred frame. In the ECI the orbit cannot claim to be at rest. That IS a preferred frame and is not allowed by SR. I have no objection to your correctly stating that SR prohibits preferred frames. I have said that masy times myself. But you are extending that to all physics and proclaiming there are no preferred frames; which is simply a lie.

Even your application of the "Frame Switching" standard to time dilation calculations establishes a preferred frame such that you are actually performing LR and not SR. When you stipulate who switched frames you stipulate who has the velocity and you ignore the relative velocity between frames and never try to invoke SR's reciprocity to the resting frame.

What this paper says is NOT that there are preferred frames. It says that IF quantum mechanics can be described by a "realistic" theory AND that theory is non-local THEN it MAY be the case that there is a preferred reference frame, which MAY be the cosmic background radiation frame, although the authors admit there's no way they can tell for sure.

Correct and I did print that qualification. So what is your point. Real scientist discuss use and possibility of preferred frames but according to you you know there are none. That simple fact is you don't know that at all and establishing a preferred frame is rather easy to do and is done in GPS.

In short, MacM, your lies and distortions about this paper merely act to further lower your reputation here rather than to help you make your case.

And you futile attempt to mitigate being caught with your hand in the cookie jar is also telling. I'm not the one that said "There are no preferred frames". When in fact there are many. I'm the one that raised the issue about the CMB being a possible preferred frame and you jumped all over that suggestion.

The simple truth is you do not like persons attacking your pet view and will say and do anything to save face. Well this time you have fallen on your own sword.

My advice in future is don't meddle with stuff you can't understand. Every time you do that you end up looking even more stupid.

My advice is that you take a deep breath and prepare to have egg surgically removed from your face. And realise that yuo are the one showing your ass.

 

[James R]

MacM:

The problem is not that he is shot . He will be seen to either survive or die in all frames but the issue is the physics for him getting shot (at least in my automatic controls scenario) the equipment has the same rules of engagement and in one frame he is shot and in the other he is not.

You just don't get it, do you?

I have asked you at least three times now to specify your "automatic controls" in sufficient detail to demonstrate your claim. You have not done so and cannot do so. Until you do, any further conversation with you is a complete waste of time.

Moreover, despite your stupidity I have already explained why any such scheme cannot work and why this is no problem at all for relativity. It's clear for other people to see, even if you lack the capacity to understand.

i.e. - The physics are NOT the same in all frames.

One of the postulates on which relativity is based is that the physics is the same in all inertial frames. You can't derive the fact that the physics is different in different frames using a theory that assumes from the start that the physics is the same in all frames. Duh!

Further I really don't need to fully grasp all details the issue is the existance of preferred frames which you deny exist and for which they have determined are required for viable views of QM.

I just explained to you why this is wrong. Re-read my previous post until you understand it. Then get back to me if you have any questions.

I am not surprised that you and others resist such new work...

"Resist"?

I have no problem with this paper. I have a problem with your misunderstanding of it, and your general misunderstanding of physics and total unwillingness to learn anything.

While I have repeatedly attempted to make the point that the GPS ECI frame ...[snip]

You are incapable of understanding the GPS system. It relies on general relativity and you haven't got to first base with special relativity yet. There's no point attempting to discuss the GPS system with you, so I won't waste my breath.

So what is your point. Real scientist discuss use and possibility of preferred frames but according to you you know there are none.

Your claim, remember, is that there are preferred frames of reference, not that there might be if the standard description of quantum mechanics turns out to be wrong. Are you retreating from your blanket claim now?

 

[Billy T]

Following PS has been added to post 804:

PS
Note that if space did not contract, (2)'s approach would NOT agree with (1) so the fact that a given mass of half liquid lead / half solid lead exists as half liquid / half solid in all frames is strong proof of space contraction.

Valid physics is NOT self contradictory.

 

[MacM]

MacM:You just don't get it, do you?

I have asked you at least three times now to specify your "automatic controls" in sufficient detail to demonstrate your claim. You have not done so and cannot do so. Until you do, any further conversation with you is a complete waste of time.

What about english do you not comprehend? I have clearly stated the controls in each frame monitor each frame. If eitehr control sees a detonation that was not simultaneous then it reacts (pulls the trigger). Now if you rteally want detail I can design such a system giving you circuit diagrams and part number of components of the shelf but you are being deliberately obtuse.

Moreover, despite your stupidity I have already explained why any such scheme cannot work and why this is no problem at all for relativity. It's clear for other people to see, even if you lack the capacity to understand.[/qquote]

You know what shove your attidude up your a__. You are the stupid one here.

For all others let me clarify. I don't actually see that this scenario contributres much to she overall physics situation. That is the fact that these controls react is because SR has different physicasl consequences in each frame. So it doesn't alter anything but it does highlight the issue.

That issue is that in one frame the observer would survive and in the other he dies. Of course if SR is correct he is going to die and he'll be seen dying in all frames buty the oint is he shouldn't have died based on the physics of another frame. That is the issue.

One of the postulates on which relativity is based is that the physics is the same in all inertial frames. You can't derive the fact that the physics is different in different frames using a theory that assumes from the start that the physics is the same in all frames. Duh!

First - DUH! indeed then why do you suppose that you calculated that in one frame the fuse contracts but not in another. AND YOU STILL WANT TO CLAIM (FALSELY) THAT PHYSICS ARE THE SAME IN ALL FRAMES. YOU ARE DOWN RIGHT IGNORANT.

Second:

WEBSTER:

Postulate: 2) to assume without proof to be true, real or necessary

Now that foundation for a theory really impresses me. Shsssh !

I just explained to you why this is wrong. Re-read my previous post until you understand it. Then get back to me if you have any questions.

No question because there is no useful information in your post. Educated, intelligent, mainstream physicist are discussing concepts involving real physics (in my view) where preferred frames are reauired and where the CMB may be just such a frame, published in your favorite best peer reviewed journal.

You had very mild comments about that but the simple fact is I have repeatedly said that preferred frames (one being possibly the CMB) provide a more suitable physics foundation. You jump all over me and want to call names. The only difference here is they have not openly said SR is invalid.

If they advocated that then you would lable them crank and crackpot. So it is OK the be thinking SR is wrong and explore and discuss alternatives as long as you don't make the mistake of crapping on Einstein.

You don't sse the problem with your position?

"Resist"?

Yes resist. Anytime you are given papers that purport to conflict with you views you blow them off as trash and never actually look into the data to determine any validity or reason why it might not be valid. You merely assume it is invalid because it differs with your intrenched view.

I have no problem with this paper. I have a problem with your misunderstanding of it, and your general misunderstanding of physics and total unwillingness to learn anything.

1 - Your problem is that others that you now must recognize in your favorite journal have said somethings very much aloing the lines of my view of physics. I would have to say I am a realist and would support realistic theories.

2 - Unfortunately your definition of "Unwillingness to learn" is actually describing refusal to abandon ratinal physics based on heresay and unsupported rhetoric. There is a big diffeerence between not understanding and rejecting becasuse you understand. The later is actually my situation although you will never acknowledge it.

You are incapable of understanding the GPS system.

Funny since I raise GPS yearrs ago and had to teach you and correct you on several fronts as to how the system actually works. For anyone willing to go back and look (I may myself and post links) James R first said SR was used and must be used and GPS proved SR. Once cornered he then took the position SR cannot be used because it is a non-inertial (rotating) system. When it was ointed out tht a large number of physicist actually consider orbit inertial because it is free-fall and that free-fall is inertial he then refuses to acknowledge that using the ECI frame which is a preferred frame that prohibits SR's reciprocity, he claims there are no such frames and that the ECI is nothing more than a matter of choice. Although he has failed to post any other frame system from which GPS would actually work.

No James R is quick to shoot off his mouth but has not in over 5 years ever actually supported his views with emperical data.

It relies on general relativity and you haven't got to first base with special relativity yet. There's no point attempting to discuss the GPS system with you, so I won't waste my breath.

You pathetic ass. You knew jack shit about GPS until I raked you over the coals about it. As I recall QQ was part of those that participated in those threads.

Care to confirm what I have just said QQ?

Your claim, remember, is that there are preferred frames of reference, not that there might be if the standard description of quantum mechanics turns out to be wrong. Are you retreating from your blanket claim now?

Not at all. I have consistantly pointed out to you that there are preferred frames and that you actually use preferred frames but just refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[MacM]

Following PS has been added to post 804:

PS
Note that if space did not contract, (2)'s approach would NOT agree with (1) so the fact that a given mass of half liquid lead / half solid lead exists as half liquid / half solid in all frames is strong proof of space contraction.

Valid physics is NOT self contradictory.

You are simply nuts and talking BS. You have proven nothing.

 

[James R]

MacM:

You just don't get it, do you?

I have asked you at least three times now to specify your "automatic controls" in sufficient detail to demonstrate your claim. You have not done so and cannot do so. Until you do, any further conversation with you is a complete waste of time.

... I have clearly stated the controls in each frame monitor each frame. If eitehr control sees a detonation that was not simultaneous then it reacts (pulls the trigger).

Then the ground controls pull the trigger and the controls in the TNT box do not. The person dies in both frames, and the observers agree that the ground controls were triggered and the box controls were not.

What is it about this that you're incapable of comprehending? It's so blindingly simple.

That issue is that in one frame the observer would survive and in the other he dies.

What's your problem? I have explained exactly why you are wrong over and over. Do you have learning difficulties? (Don't bother answering - I know you do.)

First - DUH! indeed then why do you suppose that you calculated that in one frame the fuse contracts but not in another. AND YOU STILL WANT TO CLAIM (FALSELY) THAT PHYSICS ARE THE SAME IN ALL FRAMES. YOU ARE DOWN RIGHT IGNORANT.

The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. It's the number one postulate of special relativity. The fuse contracting is an effect of viewing it from different reference frames. It doesn't change the physics.

Second:

WEBSTER:

Postulate: 2) to assume without proof to be true, real or necessary

Now that foundation for a theory really impresses me. Shsssh !

It's the foundation for ALL theories in physics. Every single one of them, without exception, rests on unprovable postulates. That you don't understand this only serves to further highlight your complete ignorance of science.

Educated, intelligent, mainstream physicist are discussing concepts involving real physics (in my view) where preferred frames are reauired and where the CMB may be just such a frame, published in your favorite best peer reviewed journal.

They understand what they are talking about. You do not.

Yes resist. Anytime you are given papers that purport to conflict with you views you blow them off as trash and never actually look into the data to determine any validity or reason why it might not be valid. You merely assume it is invalid because it differs with your intrenched view.

This paper in no way disproves the theory of relativity. If you claim that it does, you're operating on a delusion based on your inability to understand the paper.

1 - Your problem is that others that you now must recognize in your favorite journal have said somethings very much aloing the lines of my view of physics.

This paper has nothing to do with your crazy views of physics.

For anyone willing to go back and look (I may myself and post links) James R first said SR was used and must be used and GPS proved SR.

For the record, this is a lie, and so is the rest of the paragraph it comes from.