justafool @zeccano@qoto.org
Joined Nov 2019
You just CANT rationally explain what I asked in my last question.
And please STOP saying that length contraction or Mass increase has ever been observed.
And Time is not a thing, its a concept, so your fiddling with clocks proves NOTHING about TIME.
SO, NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE!
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Your explanation is exactly as sensible as the theory of the Flat Earth.
You statement, rephrased is:
"" Physical matter actually changes size and Weight for someone who watches anything moving".
This is EXACTLY what you said, in plain English for anyone to follow. Its more stupid than Flat Earth theory.
Your task is now to explain HOW this could be remotely possible? What force is acting on the matter, shrinking it in one direction but not any other, whilst simultaneously causing it to get heavier at the same time? (we are on Earth, where mass is the same measurement as weight)
Please go ahead, explain, this will be interesting.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
One of us does not understand reference frames, its you.
Do reference frames alter matter or not?
Yes or no.
Its NO, a different perspective on an event involving matter CAN NEVER play any part in the event. NOTHING can be changing, not mass, distance or time.
Why cant you get this obvious fact through that stubborn head of yours?
The following is NOT addressed to Dr Freemo.
Einstein's e =mc2 is not demonstrated by the nuclear bomb.
Anynmore than Dynamite is.
IF as EInstein claims, mass is just energy, then the equation e=mc2 must allow that the Mass could be Enriched Uranium of the nuclear bomb, OR ANY matter of the same MASS.
So 1 kg of uranium or 1kg of duck feathers, or 1 kg of dog shit would release the same destructive energy!
Yeah right einstein....
Enriched Uranium is an unstable explosive material like dynamite is. Just more powerful.
Dog shit is cheaper, why not bomb Israel with dog shit bombs?
Im not he only person who thinks that einstein's theories are rubbish.
and its NOT necessary to do the math in order to grasp the theory.
I wont do the math till I hear a solid hypothesis.
Also others ARE reading this discussion, so my time educating to public that something is very wrong with science, is not a waste time.
They can judge for themselves who is making more sense. The guy who claims that things shrink when you go fast, and get impossibly heavy, or the guy who says that this is nonsense, and cant be demonstrated.
"Binsic" has followed me, thats one.....
anyway,, im not listening to anything more you say, unless you start talking sensibly, and begin to use rational arguments.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Now you are lying. Einstein never gave us nuclear power at all.
or atomic bombs, he hardly had anything to to with it. and he stuffed up astronomy so that we have stupidity ruling that field now too... 90 % dark matter and dark energy, give me a break!
The ONLY observation evidence you present is that you clock changed under varying physical conditions. that does not mean that "Time" changed does it?
There is not one single demonstration that Mass or length increases of decreases with velocity. After 100 years. nothing.
So there is little point claiming that i'm ignoring the evidence.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
You, and 100 experts have done their best to explain frames to me and everyone else, they have failed to present a rational explanation how observation can cause a physical change.
Or ore you now denying that it can cause a physical change in matter?
You are so contrary in your statements, its hard to pin you down to one claim.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
If Einsten is a scientist, and tesla is not, despite him running rings around Einstein, then scientists are delusional fools, and are not as wonderful as they keep insisting they are.
Einstein used his genius to invent a Refrigerator after they were already invented, and even then he need to get the help of a clever guy. Thats the only evidence of his genius.
Tesla spoke 9 languages, and you really think he just bumbled around in his shed and accidentally came up with AC power and the induction motor?
He had on plan or theories?
You mainstream guys are so brainwashed, unable to think outside the little boxes you have been put in.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Im not returning to plead with you to teach me anything. You suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect, thinking that you are smarter than you obviously are. It happens to educated people as easily as to non educated people. Common sense however is not that common.
What you have said so far is not rational. You have no understanding that the imaginary frames of reference cant possibly cause any physical changes in matter.
This is a irrational belief that is more akin to superstition than physics. Then you invent a mythical world of math mumbo jumbo to support your delusions about matter shrinking when there is no demonstration that this can happen.
You clock changed due to physical forces, it was not "Time" that changed.
You cant show that distance shrinks with speed, and you discarded the theories third claim that Mass increases because that was just too stupid for anyone to accept, that's why all the complicated twisting of logic to skip from Mass to energy.
If you had anything rational and sensible to say, I would be willing to listen to you, but so far you just repeat all the errors of thought that Einsteins came up with.
Physical matter does not morph simply because someone watched another person moving.
If he does not watch, then there is no shrinking..
This is stupid. You dont understand that frames do NOT mean that something shrinks with speed, but is only measurable by someone else.
Say something reasonable and Ill listen. I'm not into magic.
You have done away with two of the three claims of Einsrtein, (effects on Mass and Distance, no proof) so are only left with tine, which cant shrink because its a concept.
Physical Clocks can and do change under differing physical conditions and thats what you measured.
The difference was according to the lorentz translation which strangely enough requires an absolute frame of reference. Lorentz invented, dreamed up, imagined his equation to explain how M&M could get a null result but there could still be an aether, the absolute frame of reference for light.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Dont rubbish Tesla, a man who developed AC power, and the induction motor, which is still essential in industry today.
He did not need to publish and papers to be a sicientist. A scientist is someone who studies the natural world, and endeavors to understand it. Thats all. Im a scinetist. Im just not interested or able to try to develop any new theories of how stuff works, Im just interested in learning about what others have said, and why they thought that.
A professional scientists is not so trustworthy as they have pressures that can and do direct their research and results directly. Science is a business.
@freemo
Tell me this:
Maxwell concluded that light was an electromagnetic effect, based on only the fact that both his calculation for the speed of an electron happened to be similar to the speed someone else discovered?
Thats possibly just coincidental that they both have the same speed, its not proof that are one in the same energies.
Light is unaffected by magnetism or electricity, but it should be.
Magnetism is unaffected by any type of radiation. yet it should be.
Both light and other radiation may have some almost symbiotic like relationship to electricity, but that still does not mean that are the same.Maxwell assumed they were the same.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Of course there are. Trouble is that any scientist that rejects einstein is instantly labeled as a non reputable scientist.
Dr Louis Essen inventor of an atomic clock is one.
I can dig around and make a reasonable list, but it does no good.
The genius Tesla was another notable scientist.
Ron Hatch who hols many patents of the GPS system , rejects SR and the the claim that its used to adjust the satellite clocks on which he worked.
There are many more, but i need to go read up.. not worth the effort.
@freemo To give me something to read, give me a link that explain the HOW please.
Ive not come across any info like that.
@freemo Not agreeing with you is obnoxious?
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
Whatever, its a cop out to suggest that I cant understand the irrationality of SR's claims.
I dont agree with the whole hypothesis stage by stage, this is NOT the same as not understanding it.
And you speak as if Im the only one that rejects SR.'
There are actually famous scientists that don't accept it.
Anyway, each to his own,
Cheers.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Ok, Ill leave you now with my closing remark, and wish you all the best despite our differences.
The concept we call Time, and real distances and real mass or even real momentum of that mass, can never actually change simply if some fool decides to observe it from a different position and is now in motion.
Perception is not necessarily reality.
Nothing you have provided has been able to affect this fundamental understating I accept regarding the nature of reality.
Incredible claims require incredible evidence. There is no "incredible" evidence, there is only subjective interpretation of a precious few very dubious experiments.
While you cant see past einsteins ego.
Science is supposed to answer the HOW. Just claiming that it happens DESPITE it being IRRATIONAL and against all logic, is unacceptable for me.
Armed with your best explanations and having the world phsyicists behind you, its stramge that you cant present a convincing case,
There are too many leaps of faith required to accept SR. ad too many contradictions in the hypothesis.
For this reason I reserve judgement on any claimed experimental evidence that supports the hypothesis.
You have hardly thrashed my concerns with anything rational.
The best you have is that it just works somehow, and the results of the equations seem to fit the observations.
As Feynman said, a correct answer is not proof.
Im done with this, you have been unable to supply any slam dunk defense for a highly suspect hypothesis.
Thanks for trying though.
I did read it, I dont accept their conclusions or method is indisputable. I would want to have a look at critical reviews from people that are skeptical.
However, this does not explain how it can happen, it just claims that it does happen, without offering any way it can possibly occur.
If they could come up with a hypothesis that explains rationally what is happening, then Ill read that, THEN get more interested in experiments that claim to support the hypothesis.
Joined Nov 2019
