The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Time  (Read 17513 times)

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #125 on: 27/03/2015 17:18:24 »
I don't accept that as a fact. As a fact that's only from a particular frame of reference and Einstein showed us using general relativity that there are no absolute (aka right/correct) frames of reference so the Earth's frame is just as good as any.

Be careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #126 on: 29/03/2015 08:31:33 »
Quote from: David Cooper
Be careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.
Sorry my friend but I disagree. Einstein's assertion was most certainly logically sound, for certain. It's you're assertion that is not logically sound. It's quite illogical to claim that there's an absolute frame that can't be identified. It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #127 on: 29/03/2015 13:58:52 »
Quote from: David Cooper
Be careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.
Sorry my friend but I disagree. Einstein's assertion was most certainly logically sound, for certain. It's you're assertion that is not logically sound. It's quite illogical to claim that there's an absolute frame that can't be identified. It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."

Be careful with this - ''It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."'

Like I said you can not observe space-time which contradicts Einstein's own idea about initial reference frames in space.

« Last Edit: 29/03/2015 14:00:23 by Thebox »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #128 on: 29/03/2015 14:05:35 »
Quote from: Thebox
Like I said you can not observe space-time which contradicts Einstein's own idea about initial reference frames in space.
If you weren't so ignorant about physics then you'd know the problem with that assertion and why its so wrong. We've lost patience with you since you clearly have no wish to learn the correct physics and only want to go around claiming how wrong everyone including Einstein is. So we're not wasting our time with you anymore.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #129 on: 29/03/2015 15:30:26 »
Quote from: Thebox
Like I said you can not observe space-time which contradicts Einstein's own idea about initial reference frames in space.
If you weren't so ignorant about physics then you'd know the problem with that assertion and why its so wrong. We've lost patience with you since you clearly have no wish to learn the correct physics and only want to go around claiming how wrong everyone including Einstein is. So we're not wasting our time with you anymore.

Can you honestly say that it is not you understanding me, and you being ignorant and set in your ways?

Nothing is absolute , proto-science always.  I have said nobody is wrong, I am extending their thoughts, I know what time is exactly but I am saving that for a section in my everything theory.  Where it will be explained and understood, and not in my quick reply standard notes.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #130 on: 29/03/2015 21:42:28 »
Quote from: David Cooper
Be careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.
Sorry my friend but I disagree. Einstein's assertion was most certainly logically sound, for certain.

It was most certainly not logically sound - that is the point I've been making in various threads where I show that it leads to infinite numbers of contradictions. (E.g. http://www.newenglandphysics.org/amateur_forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=65 - this link may not be accessible to everyone as it leads to your forum and you've been talking about making everything hidden to non-members, but it will take you through an argument which demonstrates that Einstein's claim is categorically false. It does this by showing that for his claim to be correct, 2 would have to be equal to 1/2.)

Quote
It's your assertion that is not logically sound. It's quite illogical to claim that there's an absolute frame that can't be identified.

It is a claim which I have backed up with a logical argument that proves my claim to be correct. If you think it isn't, feel free to point to any part of the argument which you think goes against reason. If you don't want to accept that 2 = 1/2 and think the argument I linked to fails to tie that kind of contradiction to Einstein's claim, it ought to be dead easy for you to point to a place where my argument breaks down, but I can guarantee that you won't be able to do so.

Quote
It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."

That is no excuse for pushing assertions as logically sound when they are actually logically disproven. When you claim that Einstein's claim was logically sound, you are immediately stepping beyond the special language of physics by tagging it under logic, and under that tag your claim is completely unjustifiable. Please check my argument carefully and take the time to think this whole thing through for yourself.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2015 21:45:30 by David Cooper »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Time
« Reply #130 on: 29/03/2015 21:42:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums