Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I see it went over yours too.
The Swing of a Pendulum
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
I see it went over yours too.
It is like trying to talk to someone in a Monty Python sketch, only it is not funny.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I wouldn't be laughing if I were you either, your world is crumbling! Literally!! Mass evolves to space! Mass gets less dense over time! The earth came from the sun!
More salad please!
Pantaz
Registered Member
Oh, c'mon, it's a little bit funny.
I really do hope he's just a persistent troll, otherwise it's a depressing example of self-delusion.
On the plus side, threads such as this have been very educational for me. I only went to trade school (ITT), so I missed out on experiencing a well-rounded curriculum. Over the years of my lurking on physics/science forums, I've gained a reasonably good understanding (for a layman) of relativity, and many other amazing scientific theories.
I honestly appreciate everyone's contribution to my continuing education. (Please don't bill me for tuition -- I can't afford it!)
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Preferred treatment?? I get banned faster than Chinglu at a anti-Chinaman festival!
Not surprising. I notice you deny none of the points in the anti-Troll rules.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I don't identify with those points, why would I deny them?
Motor Daddy:
I write two or three detailed posts, including an explicit addressing of the questions you asked me, and this is the best you can do? Is it time for you to run away again?
I've just explained to you, in detail, why I can't be wrong by definition.
Do you have any response to what I wrote, or are you just going to dishonestly pretend I never wrote it?
This is a waste of my time. You and I are in different time zones. If you want to go step by step like this, it will take us months to get to the point where you can even start to describe a scenario. And then, once you've done that it will be the same old "light-sphere" example, for which I have already pointed out the differnences between the MD universe and Einstein's universe, complete with excellent explanations and even diagrams.
It's time for you to put in some effort.
I will point out your errors when I feel inclined to do so, and I will post inconvenient reminders of where I tried to educate you previously. But I will not waste my time on you since you are obviously unwilling to learn and/or incapable of it. Besides, things have got to the point where I doubt your good intentions and your capacity for honesty, and that does not make for a useful learning relationship.
I write two or three detailed posts, including an explicit addressing of the questions you asked me, and this is the best you can do? Is it time for you to run away again?
I've just explained to you, in detail, why I can't be wrong by definition.
Do you have any response to what I wrote, or are you just going to dishonestly pretend I never wrote it?
This is a waste of my time. You and I are in different time zones. If you want to go step by step like this, it will take us months to get to the point where you can even start to describe a scenario. And then, once you've done that it will be the same old "light-sphere" example, for which I have already pointed out the differnences between the MD universe and Einstein's universe, complete with excellent explanations and even diagrams.
It's time for you to put in some effort.
I will point out your errors when I feel inclined to do so, and I will post inconvenient reminders of where I tried to educate you previously. But I will not waste my time on you since you are obviously unwilling to learn and/or incapable of it. Besides, things have got to the point where I doubt your good intentions and your capacity for honesty, and that does not make for a useful learning relationship.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I already explained it 27.5 times, James, what more do you want? Evidence? I'm not in the manufacturing business, I'm in the theoretical development department.
I already responded, James. What more information do you want? You probably know my theory better than I do. Certainly your math skills and physics knowledge is leaps and bounds ahead of me. But you know what? All the knowledge in the world about raking leaves won't help you learn to ride a bike.
The way I see it (because after all, perception is reality) you have suffered the agony of defeat and you have no choice but to turn to negative comments. I'm not interested in playing your personal attack game.
Yes, Motor Daddy, they are just attacking you, and not your idiot ideas. You are a martyr.
I don't for a moment think that MD is intellectually dishonest or evasive for sticking to his views. And I might note that the personal comments have come from others than him in most cases.
In her book - Science: A Four Thousand Year History” (2009), Patricia Fara of Cambridge University wrote that “there can be no cast-iron guarantee that the cutting-edge science of today will not represent the discredited alchemy of tomorrow”. I think there's a message in that for all of us.
Or have we reached that unique position today, where we are finally at the end of all knowledge ?
In her book - Science: A Four Thousand Year History” (2009), Patricia Fara of Cambridge University wrote that “there can be no cast-iron guarantee that the cutting-edge science of today will not represent the discredited alchemy of tomorrow”. I think there's a message in that for all of us.
Or have we reached that unique position today, where we are finally at the end of all knowledge ?
Except that Motor Daddy's world view is demonstrably wrong. IF this were just a disagreement about equally valid theories it would be different.
I notice that the pseudoscience types all seem to come to each other's aid and yet they all disagree. Each has their own weird ideas. I attribute this to an attitude that all ideas are equal. An idea that is popular in early grades of public school, but when we get to the real adult world it is completely false. All ideas are not equally valid or even equally acceptable. Somebody earlier said that the science advocates were guilty of "argument of appeal to authority". When the argument is contrary to overwhelming evidence it is wrong. There is no middle ground. Motor Daddy is wrong and there is not even a minuscule possibility he is correct. His ideas do not meet any level of validity. It is time we all abandon this notion that all ideas are equal, that all arguments are equal and that everyone deserves a hearing. If I needed the advice of a doctor I am not going to ask the guy that changes the oil in my car about my condition. Nor would you.
My words were offered for your benefit since you don't do math. I think there were just the right amount of words to say what the formulas would otherwise say. Once you understand the way forces act on the pendulum, you will get past your misunderstandings about relative motion.
Unless you understand how the forces are transmitted, and that they add, you will lose sight of the relative nature of all motion. Presumably you would not argue that there is an absolute force in the universe. As I said earlier, acceleration is the instantaneous slope on the velocity curve, that is, it's relative to the velocity an instant earlier. But to make this easier for you, I traced out the forces involved so you could reason through the errors in your thinking.
Hardly. You would certainly need to understand how forces acting on a body will add, in the vector sense. Without that much of basic principles, you could not begin to answer the question you asked in the OP. You're still lacking in quite a few things you would need to know to solve the equations of motion for the pendulum before, during, and after the acceleration of the car.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
The pendulum is swinging and the distance between the rockets isn't changing. Do those words mean anything to you?
Motor Daddy:
Your theory has been tested. It is wrong. It has been superceded by a superior theory in the light of evidence.
I patiently explained to you why you cannot be right "by definition", and within a few posts you're back to asserting that you're right by definition.
Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand the point I put to you, or (worst case) you understood the point and had no adequate response so you ignored it. Sadly, I'm inclined to put you down for option 3.
I don't need any more information about your "theory". I understand it completely. What I want is for you to acknowledge that it doesn't correspond to reality as it is observed. Failing that, I'd like you at least to attempt to learn something about the basics of the alternative theory, to the point where you can understand what you are facing when you try to refute it. What I like least about you is your wilful burying of your head in the sand and your apparently deliberate avoidance of inconvenient truths that don't suit your constructed narrative. That's not how science is done. Your most careful critic should be yourself.
You're living a fantasy when you imagine that anything you have posted here has defeated the theory of relativity. Every argument you have ever put has been addressed and refuted and/or corrected, in detail.
Your theory has been tested. It is wrong. It has been superceded by a superior theory in the light of evidence.
I patiently explained to you why you cannot be right "by definition", and within a few posts you're back to asserting that you're right by definition.
Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand the point I put to you, or (worst case) you understood the point and had no adequate response so you ignored it. Sadly, I'm inclined to put you down for option 3.
I don't need any more information about your "theory". I understand it completely. What I want is for you to acknowledge that it doesn't correspond to reality as it is observed. Failing that, I'd like you at least to attempt to learn something about the basics of the alternative theory, to the point where you can understand what you are facing when you try to refute it. What I like least about you is your wilful burying of your head in the sand and your apparently deliberate avoidance of inconvenient truths that don't suit your constructed narrative. That's not how science is done. Your most careful critic should be yourself.
You're living a fantasy when you imagine that anything you have posted here has defeated the theory of relativity. Every argument you have ever put has been addressed and refuted and/or corrected, in detail.
There are no absolutes in spacetime. Ten minutes of research will show that. Sticking to wrong views is what most of this thread is about.
That doesn't change the fact that there is no absolute motion.
Anyone who declares that there is absolute motion is at the end of quite a bit of knowledge. Similarly, anyone who dismisses the world body of knowledge as something . . . unreliable? unproven? . . . has already reached the end of that road, insofar as their personal journey in science is concerned.