Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: niebieskieucho on 14/09/2013 21:01:45
-
I have the impression that most of scientists who write about time can be compared to behaving like a drunk in a fog. They have no idea what time it is, but insist it has Einsteinian properties. May I invite you to my brief article http://www.eioba.com/a/33e7/why-time-cannot-dilate ?
--
Those who claim that understood relativity, automatly acknowledge that they understood nonsense
-
I have the impression that most of scientists who write about time can be compared to behaving like a drunk in a fog. They have no idea what time it is, but insist it has Einsteinian properties. May I invite you to my brief article http://www.eioba.com/a/33e7/why-time-cannot-dilate ?
--
Those who claim that understood relativity, automatly acknowledge that they understood nonsense
Now I have been accused of spouting nonsense but I must now pass on the baton. You have outdone me sir. Well done!
-
Those who claim that understood relativity, automatly acknowledge that they understood nonsense ...
Actually it is this comment which is utter nonsense.
Since many years I have been explaining in various publications what time is.
He doesn't understand that his blog, facebook and twitter do not constitute what anybody here would refer to as "various publications."
He makes a lot of serious accusations when he claims that time and motion are the same thing (or if this is not what he meant then he's terrible at definitions). The electric field at a given point R may take on different values, the only thing different being time. His entire article is what I like to refer to as word salad. Sorry niebieskieucho. Not today.
-
Now I have been accused of spouting nonsense ...
Who's done that? I hope it was't me? I've been looking over your recent posts and don't see anything that bothers me all that much.
-
Those who claim that understood relativity, automatly acknowledge that they understood nonsense ...
Actually it is this comment which is utter nonsense.
Haha. Here you have example of relativity consistency
http://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/relativistic-ellipse.html
Since many years I have been explaining in various publications what time is.
He doesn't understand that his blog, facebook and twitter do not constitute what anybody here would refer to as "various publications."
I didn’t mean them. But my articles (e.g. on eioba.com) or ISBN 9781844016426, ISBN 9781905399420, 9781780882390
He makes a lot of serious accusations when he claims that time and motion are the same thing (or if this is not what he meant then he's terrible at definitions).
I thought, I had clearly enough explained it in my earlier mentioned article (http://www.eioba.com/a/33e7/why-time-cannot-dilate ). Could you please let me know where I am wrong? Please note, that you cannot describe time without notion of motion, and vice versa.
The electric field at a given point R may take on different values, the only thing different being time. His entire article is what I like to refer to as word salad. Sorry niebieskieucho. Not today.
My conclusion: You don’t understand what time is. Don’t worry, not you alone.
--
My quality is lack of faults and my fault is nothing but qualities :)
In addition I trace – unfortunately – scientific absurdities :(
-
Haha. Here you have example of relativity consistency
http://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/relativistic-ellipse.html
When you laugh by yourself at someone like this you come across as childish. At least get someone to laugh with you. I looked in that page and my name isn't in it so what does it have to do with me?
Your attempt to claim that I know nothing about time is quite flawed. You have no basis upon which to do that since you have no established training in relativity or any branch of physics that I can find. What do you claim that your education in physics is?
Since many years I have been explaining in various publications what time is.
I didn’t mean them. But my articles (e.g. on eioba.com) or ISBN 9781844016426, ISBN 9781905399420, 9781780882390
Anybody can publish books. Just ask Stephen King. Your book isn't peer reviewed nor is it a text nor is it published at a university. Now let's look at the quality of them
9781844016426 - Two stars out of five
9781905399420 - No stars - Perhaps nobody bought it
9781780882390 - No stars - Perhaps nobody bought this one too
I never wrote a book yet. Just an online website to teach physics which is at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/
All I get is good comments towards it. I have no idea what people say about yours but if those stars tell me anything they tell me that it's bad.
Now let's take a look at the textbook which I helped on. ISBN 978-0201384239 That text has 4.5 out of five. The author will confirm that I helped on it.
I thought, I had clearly enough explained it in my earlier mentioned article (http://www.eioba.com/a/33e7/why-time-cannot-dilate ).
We already told you what was wrong with it. The quality of the writing is that of a child. I'm shocked that the publisher actually published something this bad. If you want to see our criticizm of it then go back to where we gave it to you and read it.
Could you please let me know where I am wrong? Please note, that you cannot describe time without notion of motion, and vice versa.
This is the error, i.e. your statement In short, one might put it: “Time is motion, change”.
Several hundred years ago people might have thought that was true. Then we learned about electrodynamics and quantum mechanics. The quantun mechanical wave function or a property of it can change yet there need not be any motion associated with it. Another example would be a time-varying electromagnetic field. The components of the field tensor can change and there not be any motion associated with the components of the field in that region of interest.
My conclusion: You don’t understand what time is. Don’t worry, not you alone.
Of course that's "your" conclusion. If it wasn't then you'd have to admit that you were wrong and we know that such a thing is not something you're able to do. Who here is going to take his side on it being right? However the validity of an argument is not determined by a single individual. That's another error that you made.
Now that I know your name I can look into who you are. So far I don't see how you have any education in math or physics.
-
Now I have been accused of spouting nonsense ...
Who's done that? I hope it was't me? I've been looking over your recent posts and don't see anything that bothers me all that much.
Don't worry it was a generalization and light hearted.
-
I have the impression that most of scientists who write about time can be compared to behaving like a drunk in a fog. They have no idea what time it is, but insist it has Einsteinian properties. May I invite you to my brief article http://www.eioba.com/a/33e7/why-time-cannot-dilate ?
Your reference is to a book, not an article. Please learn the difference.
First off you don't demonsrtrate an understanding of what time is. Please learn what time is before you attempt to learn what time is. See http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
-
I have the impression that most of scientists who write about time can be compared to behaving like a drunk in a fog. They have no idea what time it is, but insist it has Einsteinian properties. May I invite you to my brief article http://www.eioba.com/a/33e7/why-time-cannot-dilate ?
Your reference is to a book, not an article. Please learn the difference.
Sorry to start with your second post, but I'm very busy and probably will not be able to answer your first one this week. Nevertheless, I'll do it.
I know the difference. I wrote on time both in articles and in mentioned above books too. You earlier said that Facebook, website, etc. are not publications. I agreed, then indicated my publications. What's the point?
First off you don't demonsrtrate an understanding of what time is. Please learn what time is before you attempt to learn what time is. See http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
Unfortunately, I cannot fully agree with such interpretation. BTW there is loads of rubbish on the page and I could question them all, but cannot afford due to other activities.
1. Quote: “On the nature of time”. Time of what? Time doesn't have nature. Similarly as motion or change. They are empty words. You need to specify what time (motion / change) is pertaining to.
2. Time (of something) needs not be measured. Earth needs 1 year (= time) to circle the Sun. We need not to measure Earth's motion. No matter if we measure it or no, the Earth will need precisely the same length of motion to close the full cycle of its rotation.
3. “Measuring time” (it's a colloquialism). When they say time is measured motion, so you cannot measure time (as it is already measured!). Properly should be “Measuring motion”.
4. If scientists claim time can dilate, so tell me please how measure can dilate? It's only one among dozens of question on alleged time dilation.
Quote: “The Seventh Edition of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary tells us that time is "the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues."”
Time cannot be described without it's synonyms (e.g. period, during, action, process, continues...)
-
Haha. Here you have example of relativity consistency
http://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/relativistic-ellipse.html
When you laugh by yourself at someone like this you come across as childish. At least get someone to laugh with you. I looked in that page and my name isn't in it so what does it have to do with me?
Do you think it's inappropriate to laugh from ridiculous things? BTW I've got host of folks to laugh with.
Your attempt to claim that I know nothing about time is quite flawed.
Sorry. You wrongly understand notion of time.
You have no basis upon which to do that since you have no established training in relativity or any branch of physics that I can find. What do you claim that your education in physics is?
I do not understand absurd. Apparently, there were only three persons who understood relativity, i.e. nonsense. If I studied physics, I would probably follow so-called mainstream science.
Anybody can publish books.
And that's why I took advantage of it.
Just ask Stephen King.
It's not my field and not anybody can become King.
Your book isn't peer reviewed nor is it a text nor is it published at a university.
I don't care. Peer-reviewing means brakes for independent thinking. The most important thing is to present ones own way of understanding of nature.
Now let's look at the quality of them
9781844016426 - Two stars out of five
9781905399420 - No stars - Perhaps nobody bought it
9781780882390 - No stars - Perhaps nobody bought this one too
You are wrong. I've received and still obtain royalties for the third one. You don't know the story behind the 2 earlier books.
The first – My publisher had gone to liquidation and their rights took another publisher then they stopped paying me royalties, so I terminated with them contract, but they disregarded it and still trade in my book.
The second – The publisher pissed me off (among other by changing my words, which was unacceptable) so I terminated agreement, but it seems they still trade in my book.
Both books, due to my terminations of agreements should have been permanently removed from offers of internet booksellers.
The third - is the recent one (2013)
I never wrote a book yet. Just an online website to teach physics which is at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/
I respect your good knowledge. You can try.
All I get is good comments towards it. I have no idea what people say about yours but if those stars tell me anything they tell me that it's bad.
I really don't care. The most important issue for me is what I want to convey to readers. I take part in various scientific forums. Some scientists / independent researchers congratulated me, some (representing mainstream) didn't share my stance.
Now let's take a look at the textbook which I helped on. ISBN 978-0201384239 That text has 4.5 out of five. The author will confirm that I helped on it.
Congratulations.
But: There is no Spacetime. Just space. There is no curvature of space neither near Earth nor near black holes. Space doesn't undergo changes. Relativity is a false theory due to many reasons.
We already told you what was wrong with it. The quality of the writing is that of a child. I'm shocked that the publisher actually published something this bad. If you want to see our criticizm of it then go back to where we gave it to you and read it.
Please note that by means of this brief article I am explaining why time cannot dilate. It's sufficient just tell two sentences. 1. Time (of something) is resultant (you can control only speed of something, or “v” and / or distance, or “s”). 2. In order achieve longer time of something one has to decrease velocity (of something). As it appears dilation of time is not feasible. You may consider it's quality as of a child, but how could I name elaborate articles on relativity? They are simply insane.
This is the error, i.e. your statement In short, one might put it: “Time is motion, change”.
Several hundred years ago people might have thought that was true. Then we learned about electrodynamics and quantum mechanics. The quantun mechanical wave function or a property of it can change yet there need not be any motion associated with it.
QM is partly true. There are false assumptions in it. I maintain that change = motion = time. Properties cannot undergo changes.
Another example would be a time-varying electromagnetic field. The components of the field tensor can change and there not be any motion associated with the components of the field in that region of interest.
varying = motion = change = time. The Earth's length of motion around the Sun is 939,886,400 km is equal to time which amounts to: 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, 9.54 seconds and it doesn't matter if we measure it or no. BTW magnetic field belongs to physical entities. It's endowed with properties of matter. Nature does not make exceptions for the laws in micro-world.
Of course that's "your" conclusion. If it wasn't then you'd have to admit that you were wrong and we know that such a thing is not something you're able to do. Who here is going to take his side on it being right? However the validity of an argument is not determined by a single individual. That's another error that you made.
Sorry. Maybe I was rude. Anyone is free to comprehend in one's own way and write on anything. Including me. I am not going to change my mind. I've discussed about it in dozens of scientific forums and never surrendered. Moreover, I was granted scores for my comments. And it does not matter what number of scientists supports mainstream science (in this question).
Now that I know your name I can look into who you are. So far I don't see how you have any education in math or physics.
I feel educated sufficiently to make use of my brain. I graduated from university of economic. I passed maths exams without problems. Unfortunately there was no physics at the university but it didn't matter. I still study physics (particularly fields in which I am interested). BTW I never ask discussants about their education. I can discuss with a cleaning lady, a hairdresser, milkman, etc. For me, the important thing is what they have to say on the subject.
-
I feel educated sufficiently to make use of my brain.
Those are two unrelated endevors. Education only conveys information to you. If you mispent your education then you didn't learn it or use it to learn how to properly construct a valid arguement. And for some bizzare reason you think that becoming educated in economics makes you somehow qualified to talk about physics? You're quite wrong. And you're very irritating to talk to since you are unable to back up anything you claim and only mock the proofs that are given to you.
This is enough. Learn physics and there's a small chance I'll listen to you again in a few years of study. But I'm sure you don't want to because you don't see like the type how has the ability to see their mistakes.
I graduated from university of economic. I passed maths exams without problems. Unfortunately there was no physics at the university but it didn't matter.
On the contrary. You've demonstrated a shockingly poor understanding of all physkics thatr you've spoken of here.
BTW I never ask discussants about their education.
I don't either unless I can't figure out how they came to believe so many incorrect things and act as if they really know something.
You made a mistake coming here. We all know physics much better than you do and know that every thing you spout out is nonsense. Go learn physics for cripes sake!