justafool @zeccano@qoto.org
Joined Nov 2019
Last time.
Ill rephrase my question.
In my frame of reference does a moving object get more massive and grow shorter when its moving, through or in my frame of reference? Is that aclear question now?
Fuck off.
The videos were wall to wall math, I understood all of the math, I just dont like doing math myself. The math is simple enough.
Stop with these lame excuses.
Does mass and length actually change physically just because someone watches an object move?
Yes or no. Einsteins says yes, so I not sure why Im asking you guys.
But if you say yes, then we have problems. If you say no then there is nothing physical about SR, its not physics.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
This is not a link to any answer to my question.
tinyurl.com/wtkc5mu
Its a repeat of the same old worn out material that prompted me to ask questions.
Look, try hard to understand this.
Ive read every important bit of information on SR. Ive been over all the posted university lectures that step through SR by the best physicists, I find errors in all the material, i have questions Ive tried to find answers for, but I just get ignored when I expect to get rational answers, as Im not interested in any old answer.
No one, not you are any one else ive asked has even tried to explain what Ive asked.
Does mass, length actually change simply because someone watches it, according to einsteins paper, ? or not?
And Ive explained in very easy terms, why those answers fail to actually me meaningful.
Giving AN answer is not the same as being correct.
I still have not got the confirmation of even the simplest concept from you, "does observation ACTUALLY physically change matter, its length and its mass?"
Or does it only SEEM like something changed, in the same way that a guy of LSD with imaging things are different?
Is it the first or the second?
Im never grovelling to anyone to get information. Make sense and Ill go along with you, but if I find fault and you are unable to understand that its a fault, then you have a mental problem, unless you can respond to the claimed fault.
You cant or wont do this step.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo @Oblivia
You are truly an idiot.
How does pointing me at the exact same stuff Im criticizing answer my question that was not contained in the material in the first place?
You dont even know what a question is, or what a suitable answer might be.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo @Oblivia "
Needs to be better than you last citation. Ill read. thanks. Later.
The simple fact is that if YOU "got it" then it would not be so difficult for you to explain the answers to my last few basic questions, but Ive so far had not one attempt by you are anyone else to reveal the big secret.
I suggest that its more likely that you dont "got it" yourself. Or I would have some statements from you in response to my question. It like getting blood for a stone talking got you guys.
"we are right, but we are not telling!
Either explain, or cite a document that does it please.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas @Oblivia
Brilliant, you make no rational statements at all, but Im the person with the problem?
Sounds like you are just stuck for a decent reply.
Admit it, you cant explain rationally what I asked. Or dont bother, just give me a link to a document that has already answered these questions, there you don't need to get involved. And I don't need to keep asking you.
Several documents links are also fine, variety is the spice of life.
I am not struggling with this dickhead.
Its you that are to into the dogma that you cant think straight, ever thought of that?
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas @Oblivia
Ok wise guy, define mass and length. Are there two or more definitions or meaning in physics for these terms?
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo @Oblivia
Einstins said as the conclusion to his 1905 paper that matter shrinks, and it gets heavier. and time also slows, thats where.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
OK, read it enough to see where the trickery is attempted for gullible people.
The question is only pertaining to the theory of special Relativity, but this weak attempt to explain away the major problems with special relativity by calling up an equally ridiculous theory of General Relativity which did not arrive on the scent until 10 years after the theory of Special Relativity was a done deal.
So Ill ignore this explanation. Until we solve the issues of SR , using the theory of SR to explain itself. Which is MUST be able to do, or its not a valid theory.
Einsteins theory of SR was claimed to be proven beyond doubt before the theory of GR was presented.
So exactly how does watching something make it shrink lengthwise in the direction of motion, ans also gain weight?
Explain what is occurring to the matter that can account for this.
(anyway, saying that it spacetime does not solve this problem, same question, how does spacetime manage to change matter in that way?)
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
Good, thank, Ill read this and get back to you.
Its a bit weird that I need to ask a mathematician about a physics question, about the theory of a Physicist. I felt that Einsteins own explanation was clear and concise and simple enough to understand, but oh well, ill go do some more reading....
Ive posed only a couple of simple questions about how einstein's special relativity is supposed to work, and even scientists here are unable to provide any answer as to how the theories could possibly work in reality.
I am simply ignored.
Physical evidence proves that the theory is wrong about the mass of light, and this destroys the base for the whole theory.
As this is clearly too hard a question for the scientist, I am now brushed aside and no one reading any of this is going to see any rational reply from the masters of all knowledge, the relativists.
Edward Bernayse was so right, people are stupid.
I accept fully ANY claim if it is rational, displays sound logic and can be clearly demonstrated. (if its a claim of Physics.) Einsteins Special Relativity has failed to meet any of these sensible requirements.
Not only that, but the actual physical experiment involving the Crookes radiometer proves that light certainly does not have any momentum, has no mass, as it is unable to cause any disturbance to the sensitive device when there is supposed to be a massive amount of kinetic energy available, according to the scientists own careful mathematical calculations!
It must be so reassuring for these guys to be long in a big secure club ,and they all get together regularly for a group mental wank.
Anyone else beside Dr freemo want to come up with any real answers to my questions?
Probably best to just run away from a challenge and pretend that I don't exist. That's what Mormons do at the door when challenged.
@freemo @Oblivia @CCoinTradingIdeas
Try answering the questions as you have all the understanding.
My last few posts show that none of what you claim can be real.
Not mass of light, not matter changing because someone is watching, and not genuine observational evidence.
It astounds me how so many people can get so confused that they actually believe this crap and pass it off as the most important discovery in science!
Cite the references for observation of mass increase, I bet a million dollars its to do with some sub atomic particle in a collider, which is hardly proof of anything. It necessarily involves a lot of assumptions and subjective intepretations.
Indirect observation of length contraction is not observation at all, it is rejected as experimental evidence for such an important principal of physics, we must have direct verifiable length contraction.
@freemo @Oblivia @CCoinTradingIdeas
Make rational claims and Ill agree with you 100%.
Ive many times explained why your claims are irrational, but you just cant understand simple rational, logical analysis of conjecture..'and conjecture is all you have with einsteins ideas.'
Ive just asked for an explanation of to how an observation can make a physical change in solid matter, and you have no answer.
How am I supposed to believe you?
As a matter of interest,, you caalculated the actual mass of a single photon of average frequency sunlight for me, mathematically perfect. Thanks.
it was 1.2156205e-27 kg per photon.
But experimental evidence PROVES that this is WRONG.
Experiments show no such mass.
If this number were correct, then the Crookes' radiometer would be receiving an appreciable amount of grams per vane, when in sunlight which is directed to only one vane on one side of the vane using optics.
Because practically countless trillions of photons strike the surface the size of that vane, every nanosecond, and although the mass you stated is very small, the combined effect of countless trillions of them per nanosecond equates to probably several KILOGRAMS of mass moving at LIGHT SPEED, having a combined momentum that would EASILY move the vanes, so the vane should spin wildly.
It does not move at all due to photon strike, the slight rotation is attributed to other causes, already proven.
The reason why you got a value for the mass of average sunlight photon is due to the fantasy Constant called Planck Length.
Max was Einstein mate, and einstein was a fool , and fools like each others company.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
So with no real evidence, einsteins theory rests on the sensibility of the hypothesis, and on examination, its irrational.
Joined Nov 2019
