The Relativity of Simultaneity

[Tach]

As for me not knowing what I'm talking about, I find even at my old age I still have the ability to learn.

Your posts show the opposite, that you are a crackpot with an axe to grind.

When I bring up something, I know I don't know as much about the topic as someone who has studied it or works with it. Is that the reason you want me to quit?

If you want to learn, shut up and read some books. Stop spamming threads.

Here is what I want from you. When I say something that you find unworthy of being posted in the forum, you take it on as a teaching opportunity. Say why I'm a pea brain and give me some content to point me in the right direction.

Drop the anti-mainstream junk and start reading textbooks. Your time would be better used this way. Googling stuff off the internet doesn't count as learning.

Right now you have acted like a complete egotist and haven't shown any aptitude for carrying on a discussion. Trolling is what you are doing.

I don't carry discussions with anti-mainstream cranks. Waste of time.

 

[Tach]

So in a box without reference to another external object, you don't know if you are at rest or in motion?

Took you 1300+ posts to figure that out. Galileo figured this one out hundreds of years ago, might be a good idea to stop posting and start reading a textbook.

 

[CptBork]

Thanks, now that is something I can work with. Maybe next time you want to teach me something you could include a good appropriate link because the Internet is a big place and if I were to go looking I would prefer to go somewhere that you recommend.

No sweat, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

 

[przyk]

There is an incompatibility between QM and GR.

Er, isn't string theory at least a proof of principle that it's possible to have a theory of gravity that's both quantum and relativistic? I'm just pointing out that saying we don't have a satisfactory quantum theory of gravity (for whatever reason), and saying quantum physics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible are two different things.

 

[arfa brane]

So in a box without reference to another external object, you don't know if you are at rest or in motion?

If you're in a box and you have no other reference but the inside of the box, you have no way to tell if the box is in motion.

If the box accelerates in one direction, then you have a reference--the direction of acceleration, and the 'strength' of the resulting force (assuming you have inertia).

 

[Motor Daddy]

If you're in a box and you have no other reference but the inside of the box, you have no way to tell if the box is in motion.

BULL! I've already showed you how to determine the absolute velocity of a box from within the box. What you mean to say is that SR has no way of determining the velocity of the box, so it pretends the box is at rest. Since it bases all it measurements on its pretend "at rest", all its measurements are wrong, unless the box really is at rest, of which it has no way to determine.

 

[quantum_wave]

No sweat, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

And you think I haven't been there many times, lol.

There is a theory for everything and given some appropriate length of time, if a theory still stands that is a good sign for it. But even if someone fully understood all the all current consensuses rendered in theories, they would not be able to say what someone should believe except that the math usually works. Science follows a method and the method causes science to unfold.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Took you 1300+ posts to figure that out. Galileo figured this one out hundreds of years ago, might be a good idea to stop posting and start reading a textbook.

I'm anti-SR, which is mainstream, so why would you want to carry on a conversation with me, after you just said, "I don't carry discussions with anti-mainstream cranks. Waste of time." :shrug:

 

[arfa brane]

You showed nothing. You've got nothing.
You do not have a method that can determine absolute velocity, because it doesn't exist.
You have a silly diagram. Are you really going to stick with "SR is wrong, I have the diagram that proves it" ??

After 69 pages, you're still on page 1.

And here we are, discussing what the real universe is like, with someone who thinks its a diagram.

 

[AlexG]

I asked for the experimental evidence supporting Einstein that refutes MD and not just your say so:

And when giving what you asked for, you decide you don't want to believe it.

QW, you're an ignorant idiot. You have no knowledge at all when it comes to physics. You reject experimental results in favor of diagrams drawn by another ignorant idiot.

The troll here is you.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You showed nothing. You've got nothing.
You do not have a method that can determine absolute velocity, because it doesn't exist.
You have a silly diagram. Are you really going to stick with "SR is wrong, I have the diagram that proves it" ??

After 69 pages, you're still on page 1.

When are you going to post your diagram and new idea?? Were you talking crap again? Why should I believe anything you have to say, when all you do is talk crap?

 

[Tach]

BULL! I've already showed you how to determine the absolute velocity of a box from within the box.

The type of insanity you suffer from isn't curable.

 

[arfa brane]

Talking crap takes a lot of practice. I have finely honed crap-talking skills, so watch it, buddy.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The type of insanity you suffer from isn't curable.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

He should know, he measures the speed of light over and over and over and expects different results.

So who is the insane one?

 

[CptBork]

Er, isn't string theory at least a proof of principle that it's possible to have a theory of gravity that's both quantum and relativistic? I'm just pointing out that saying we don't have a satisfactory quantum theory of gravity (for whatever reason), and saying quantum physics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible are two different things.

I believe String Theory only accepts GR as a low-energy approximation to quantum gravity, hence it's not subject to the same issues of compatibility. If you merely take GR as is, with the Einstein-Hilbert action etc., and apply the usual recipe for quantizing a classical theory, you get a non-renormalizable theory.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Talking crap takes a lot of practice. I have finely honed crap-talking skills, so watch it, buddy.

You're definitely BS artist of the year, but when are you gonna post your diagram? If you don't post it you'll leave me no choice but to conclude you're a liar too.

 

[quantum_wave]

Do none of these trolls have jobs.

You guys do know that on the network at work the administrator can see your screen from his desk top don't you. Or are you being paid to be obnoxious trolls, lol.

Light is emitted from a point in space. It expands spherically from that point. What are you trolls trying to say, it is not true?

Get back to work.

 

[arfa brane]

Light is emitted from a point in space. It expands spherically from that point.

That's the idea.

How would you prove it's really true? Draw a diagram?

 

[AlexG]

Oh, wow, a diagram.

If there's a diagram, it must right, no matter what actual experimental results say.


MD, you're insane.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Do none of these trolls have jobs.

You guys do know that on the network at work the administrator can see your screen from his desk top don't you. Or are you being paid to be obnoxious trolls, lol.

Light is emitted from a point in space. It expands spherically from that point. What are you trolls trying to say, it is not true?

Get back to work.

Such a simple concept and yet they can't figure it out. :shrug:

They are so far up Einstein's butt they can't see the light.