OK Relavists

Now Now

Persol,

Are we going to have to go through that whole Relavistic Pi thing again?

The question was:

"Justify how you claim you will measure a change in Pi from a ruler which was stated as being on the rotating frame".


The correct answer was "You can't". Real short admission of error on some peoples part but rather than do that we had to spend 3 days with addressing side issues and avoiding the question.

I think I demonstarted a lot. Some people assume to much about other people and listen to little and talk to much.

They let their you know what overload their you know what.
 
As I recall Mac, you didn't conclusive evidence either as to why Pi would be invariant. Under the explaination you gave, I said there was a paradox in that if Pi does not change, an observer on the periphery of the disc would measure himselk as travelling faster than c. Since SR does not deal with the effects of non-inertial frames of reference, we must proceed to GR. Since you will never understand GR, you refuted all explainations I gave to explain the situation I gave to you. In the end, like so many people before me, and surely many more to come, I gave up trying to explain this to you, as you are either ridiculously stupid, or really **** arrogant. The reason most people stop arguing with you is that you go around in big **** circles. Your arguement are circular and self referential, like you claim ours to be. Even Tom has quit trying back you up. Not that his opinion has changed, its just that all the threads you are involved degrade into the same circular arguments. Here are how all the arguements go

You; relativity is flawed, look at these 3 clocks
Reply; No it isn't, your view on simultanity is wrong
You; look at this research into FTL communication using quantum entanglement. The quantum entanglement instantaneous communication device

Reply; these people don't say that quantum entanglement communication is FTL. In fact none of the links you provide say this

You; look at the research being done, look at how much research data there is in contradiction with SR.

REPLY; What research

You; Its everywhere. Look at the MM experiment

Reply; The MM experiment confirms the axioms of SR.

You; But what if the axioms are wrong

Reply; maybe, but there is nothing to show that they would be;,

You; What about Lorentz' formulation of relativity

Reply; what about it

You; it says v can equal c

Reply; But it contradicts experiment

You; but look at this experiment

Reply; What about it. You have interpreted it wrong again.

You; but what about the 3 clock problem

Reply; What about the **** problem. There is no paradox.

You; I don't need to expalin anything to you guys, I have proof that relativity is wrong.

Reply; Well where is the proof;

You; It's not ready yet

Reply; THEN ****.
:eek:

Moderator edit: Excessive profanity removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Same Old

ryans,

As I recall Mac, you didn't conclusive evidence either as to why Pi would be invariant. Under the explaination you gave, I said there was a paradox in that if Pi does not change, an observer on the periphery of the disc would measure himselk as travelling faster than c. Since SR does not deal with the effects of non-inertial frames of reference, we must proceed to GR. Since you will never understand GR, you refuted all explainations I gave to explain the situation I gave to you. In the end, like so many people before me, and surely many more to come, I gave up trying to explain this to you, as you are either ridiculously stupid, or really fucking arrogant. The reason most people stop arguing with you is that you go around in big fucking circles. Your arguement are circular and self referential, like you claim ours to be. Even Tom has quit trying back you up. Not that his opinion has changed, its just that all the threads you are involved degrade into the same circular arguments. Here are how all the arguements go
Click to expand...


ANS: Same old BS ryan. Sr, GR Ryans R it don't make a damn. Don't you actually understand or are you just unable to accept defeat?

"ANY RULER MEASURING THE CIRCUMFERENCE (SR) OR THE RADIUS (GR) ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME AFFECT AS THE DISK. BOTH WILL CHANGE IN LIKE FASHION AT THE CIRCUMFERENCE AND OVER THE RADIUS. HENCE NO MEASUREMENT CHANGE HENCE NO CHANGING PI" - END OF STORY.

Your arguement is flawed. You told me nothing I didn't know. Even though you like to believe so. that is your problem and why you screwed this one up.
 
Then how would we be able to come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. Since space itself is expanding, our measuring instruments should be expanding with it. Bit of a paradox hey Mac. Space expands, the ruler doesn't.
 
Different

ryans,

Different principle altogether. Consider the expansion of the Univers like a ballon being blown up. It is getting larger but not because the distance between points is getting larger, you are just adding more points. So, no, the ruler is not affected.

If the expansion were to be a stretching of existing space then yes the ruler would stretch and we wouldn't see the expansion.

Therefore the fact that we see the expansion means it is not a stretching but an increasing of space itself. And I almost hate to add as per UniKEF.
 
0

James R,

Where do these "new points" come from, MacM?
Click to expand...


ANS: Your guess is just as good as anyone but mine is:

0-------->(+n)+(-n)

As ryans pointed out if the expansion of the universe doesn't include more points and were a function of stretch, then the ruler would not see the expansion; therefore more points.

Not knowing how creation is still ongoing doesn't keep it from happening. The observtion is indicative of expanding creation not expanding existance.
 
Therefore the fact that we see the expansion means it is not a stretching but an increasing of space itself. And I almost hate to add as per UniKEF.
Click to expand...

Hate to say this Mac, But this is a per GR.
 
Merry-Go-Round

ryans,

Go ahead and explain GR's version of an accelerated expansion of the Universe but I just hope this isn't the m-g-r all over again.
 
I'll admit that my knowledge of the solutions to GR is only qualitative with respect to the expansion of space and the universe. I do have an understanding of differential geometry and tensor calculus, but I think I will leave this to be answered by someone more qualified.
 
Congratulations

ryans,

Congratulations. Very good answer.

My only comment would be why is it if I attempt to frame my answer as to what I know you think I'm bragging but yo have just done the same.
 
Because you ask me a question, I answer it and you don't understand because of your lack of knowledge, but you still don't agree with be. Have a look at the "do gravitons interact" thread which I started. I was given answers by people who knew more than me to which I did not argue as they are more qualified than me.

My knowledge of physics is superior to yours, I give you an answer, you still bitch. I ask a question, get an answer and accept due to the superior knowledge someone else has to me, that's the difference between us Mac.

Moreover, if I disagree with an answer, I go away and study the solution given, and usually agree with the answer given

I give you an answer in terms of accelerated frames of reference, which you clearly do not understand and do not try to bother and understand, but you still bitch, with your invalid arguements.

It makes me wonder Mac, do you pose problems for clarification of these issues you have, for which we have some purpose of responding, to help you see the light, Or do you pose questions simply to let everyone know about your opinion.

You are **** Mac.

Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MacM:

If you want to know about cosmological models in GR, look at the work of Friedman, and the models which add in Einstein's cosmological constant.

Of course, you'll need to know something about GR, tensors, curvature and so on in order to appreciate the mathematics.
 
Typical

ryans,

Because you ask me a question, I answer it and you don't understand because of your lack of knowledge, but you still don't agree with be. Have a look at the "do gravitons interact" thread which I started. I was given answers by people who knew more than me to which I did not argue as they are more qualified than me.
Click to expand...

ANS: More often than not I have argued with you because your answers have been off point. Now perhaps that could be my fault in part if I am being unclear but more often than not you attempt to divert attention from the true question by interjecting a different issue.


My knowledge of physics is superior to yours, I give you an answer, you still bitch. I ask a question, get an answer and accept due to the superior knowledge someone else has to me, that's the difference between us Mac.
Click to expand...

ANS: I would conceed you are more "knowledgable" of physics at least as taught. But (and I already know your response to this will be assininely negative but who cares) I am more adept to understanding reality than you. You have your nose in the text books and whatever they feed you is law. Don't you realize that if you can't think for yourself or at least be able to justify what is being argued without appealing to authority that you are weak in the understanding department.

Do you not realize that unless challenges are made to current theory and you go through life preaching current concepts as a matter of absolute law of reality that there could be no change.

Science has only evolved because people challenge current concepts. Using the teachings of current concepts as their own justifiction is defeatist and no progress will occur.


Moreover, if I disagree with an answer, I go away and study the solution given, and usually agree with the answer given
Click to expand...


ANS: Covered above. If the answer is off point there is no need to conceed it, not if you have balls and confidence in your own answer. I have never been a yes man maybe that is our differance. And yes I would listen to Einstein but if when he finished I disagreed I would say so and why.


I give you an answer in terms of accelerated frames of reference, which you clearly do not understand and do not try to bother and understand, but you still bitch, with your invalid arguements.
Click to expand...


ANS: There you go again mis-stating the facts and making assumptions that are not only selfserving but casting enuendo on me. I am assuming your accelerated frame of reference comment goes to Relavistic Pi. How do you make such statements when I ultimately was shown correct on my original statement? And you made some pretty dumb statements in the process. You should stop and smell the coffee and look in a mirrow for a few minutes. You are having dilusions if you think I don't understand.

It makes me wonder Mac, do you pose problems for clarification of these issues you have, for which we have some purpose of responding, to help you see the light, Or do you pose questions simply to let everyone know about your opinion.
Click to expand...

ANS: Before you go off half-cocked once more perhaps you should check in on Relativity. I think some clarification has been made in 3 Clocks by James R.

You are not a physicists arsehole Mac.
Click to expand...


ANS: That is a true statement but it doesn't mean anything. Being a physicists and having a solid understanding of physics are entirely seperate issues.

While my understanding is not as in depth as I might like it is far greater than you have been prepared to acknowledge and more over many issues are beyond absolute detail of mathematics they are a matter of clarity of thought and not seeing the world through tainted glasses. Appealing to authority is looking through tainted glasses. That is you argue from the coat tails of others without any capacity to support your arguement. I support my arguement from my perspective without the benefit OR yoke of burden of authority.

And finally it isn't "arsehole" It is "Xxxxxxx" Xxxxxxx. (Beat you to it James R. Thanks for your above post.
 
Last edited:
Mac, if you see older physicists who have presented their theories as authorative figures, then you have a problem. I can confidently say that 9/10 physicists will accept an alternate theory to their own, if it is based on sound arguements, and supports experiment more openly.

As to your belief that these people are figures to be stood up against, it clearly shows that you don't know what it is like to be a physicists. Physicists work together and conduct debates in orderly manner, with all arguements being backed up by experimental evidence or sound logic.

You think that I see Einstein as some physics God, which I don't. It is true that many aspire to be as imaginative and productive as he, but you will find little envy in the physics community. There are many theories of Einsteins that are wrong, too simple ar that I don't agree with. Take for example the Einstein-Debye model of crystal vibrations, clearly incorrect for high temperatures where potentials can no longer be assumed to be harmonic.

I do not challenge reltivity because it does not need to be challenged. I also do not challenge things simply because they go against intuition either, as you do, as this is where the most interesting and exciting physics takes place.

How does your UniKEF model deal with singularities Mac? Does your theory predict the value of the magnetic moment of the electron? Does it explain why nanocluster has a band-structure which is dependant on the cluster size?

You are caught up in simple man's physics, and you will be confined to it for eternity unless you learn to free yourself from everyday experience, and see how the world REALLY works.
 
Appreciate

ryans,

I do appreciate your above post. I think it shows where the problems actaully are here.

YOu don't like me because you think I am a dumb a__ that thinks he knows everything. You couldn't be more wrong on both counts.

The following is the first two paragraphs from the introduction of UniKEF. Please read them carefully.

***********************************************
INTRODUCTION


The UniKEF Theory
By Dan K. McCoin (Mac)

Email: lmccoin@elp.rr.com

The UniKEF Theory is an alternative view of reality which is offered to stimulate a search for a better understanding and physical description of our universe where Relativity and Strings (TOE) theories venture off into complex mathematical projections creating unreconcilable conflicts and are devoid of any physical underpinnings.

Neither the mathematics nor the assumptions in UniKEF are based on any research or discoveries. They are offered as "By-Way-Of-Example" and are not to be taken as final arguments for UniKEF. UniKEF Gravity is supported by a calculus analysis and may be viewed in the PICTURE (PHOTO) or DOCUMENTS sections. While that lends credence to the overall concept it doesn't make it valid in any detailed way. It merely opens up many possibilities which should be explored.

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

I know you will argue "What conflicts" but your failure to recognize them are also jpart of the problem.
 
Mathematics a bit hard for you Mac. Still trying to cling to the hope that the meaning of existence will be found before you die.

Don't worry, you'll get over it, it just some middle aged crisis thing you are going through.
Leave the physics to the physicists.
 
Waiting

ryans,

Mathematics a bit hard for you Mac. Still trying to cling to the hope that the meaning of existence will be found before you die.
Click to expand...

ANS: Actually, I'm just waiting for you physicists to catch up.:D
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA......catch up to what?:bugeye:

Give me a mathematical statement for your definition of gravitational force Mac.
 
Laugh

ryans,

Good to see you laugh.

You might try read some of my material to get your answer since it involves to many pages here to explain but in the meantime I have to go to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top