The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Special Relativity falsified.  (Read 4536 times)

Online PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2768
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Special Relativity falsified.
« Reply #25 on: 02/08/2015 17:52:30 »
Quote from: Ethos_
The impediment that some people engage regarding new information is they have invested so much of their personal views in the subject that they are unable to correctly distinguish between detailed evidence and their prejudiced interpretations. When that reaction occurs, they often refuse to even examine the evidence or answer pertinent questions regarding the issue.

When confronted with such desperate biases, I consider it a waste of time to attempt breaking through those walls of prejudice.
Brilliant my friend. Time to check the crackpot index and see which ones apply to him:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Index #1) A -5 point starting credit.

Partial Sum = -5

Index #2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. - Claims SR is wrong.

Partial Sum = -4

Index #3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. - Claimed quote was irrelevant because the premise didn't apply to his scenario when in fact its only the conclusion that was relevant, i.e. non-existence of rigid bodies.

Partial Sum = -2

Index #4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. - In post #11 he wrote

You seem to be implying that because rigid bodies don't exist, we can have things like chains that magically stretch.  The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises

which is clearly inconsistent. If a body isn't rigid it means that it can deform and will do so to make sure that no signals travel FTL. For example: Have two people hold each end of a what is asserted to be a rigid rod. Let one person hold his end steady while the other person tugs on his end. The rod must stretch otherwise the other end would move and the signal would travel FTL.

Partial Sum = 2

Index #4) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. - Assumes that rigid body is irrelevant seven times

Partial Sum = 37

I got tired at this point. I drives my point home though. Perhaps I'll finish later.
 

Offline Fruityloop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Special Relativity falsified.
« Reply #26 on: 03/08/2015 03:57:56 »
Quote from: Fruityloop
Nowhere in the opening post is it stated, implied, assumed, nor required that the transmission of movement along the chain from the movement of the balls must exceed the speed of light.

Quote from: PmbPhy
Oy vey! It's been explained to you several times now that nobody is suggesting that something is being transmitted FTL,  nobody!
So here you state that nobody is suggesting that the chain is a rigid body.
Quote from: PmbPhy
These textbooks explain that there are no rigid bodies in nature and that's what your argument is based on, i.e. the existence of a rigid body. In this case the chain.
Now you turn around and claim that I'm treating the chain as a rigid body which is incorrect.
My argument is based on the fact that the chain is being forced into two different lengths between two different frames of references.  You do realize that by now right?
Quote
You're treating the chain as if it can't be stretched whereas SR asserts that it can.
Let's be clear about what is meant by the word 'stretched'.  I'm insisting that the chain can't be stretched for nearly 4 minutes.  I'm not insisting that it can't be stretched due to the time being taken for the transmission of movement from the balls to go along the chain.  These are two very different meanings of the word 'stretched'.

Quote
If frame O2 was moving at a speed of v = 0.9c then it would happen 9 nanoseconds to happen rather than 4 minutes.
Quote
The difference in time between the movement of the balls is nearly 4 minutes, not 9 nanoseconds.
Sorry.  I stand corrected.

So what is the resolution to the paradox in the opening post? Is it magically stretching chains that stretch for nearly 4 minutes?
« Last Edit: 03/08/2015 04:32:35 by Fruityloop »
 

Online PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2768
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Special Relativity falsified.
« Reply #27 on: 03/08/2015 04:38:04 »
So Fruityloop. You're back to yet once again twist what's being said, huh? Fine. I'll prove you wrong yet once again.

Quote from: Fruityloop
So here you state that nobody is suggesting that the chain is a rigid body.
Wow. You sure do have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you?  What part of the sentence nobody is suggesting that something is being transmitted FTL do you see the words "nobody is saying that the chain is a rigid body"?   Please stop twisting what's being said. In the problem you describe the chain is not moving rigidly even though you might have thought it was.

Quote from: Fruityloop
Now you turn around and claim that I'm treating the chain as a rigid body which is incorrect.
Yet once again you're twisting what you're reading. There's no place in that comment where I claimed such a thing. However when you claim that the chain must break as observed by O2 it's because you're assuming that the chain can't stretch and that implies that you think the chain is inextensible, i.e. rigid.

You really are absolutely terrible at deductive reasoning.

Quote from: Fruityloop
Let's be clear about what is meant by the word 'stretched'.  I'm insisting that the chain can't be stretched for nearly 4 minutes.
And that's why you're so wrong and that error is rooted in your very poor grasp of SR.  How long it stretches for is frame dependent. All you really did was to choose a frame of reference that is moving so damn fast that the stretching of the chain takes 4 minutes and its for that reason you chose such a speedy frame, i.e. so you could claim that it's taking too long. What you failed to understand, even after I gave you a clear example, is that there is a frame moving at 99% the speed of light and in that frame it only takes 9 nanoseconds. But you didn't like that because it made sense to you so you chose a frame in which you could watch the exact same thing in slow motion, i.e. 4 minutes, just so that you could whine about it  "Oh boo-hoo! Lool how long it takes! Bah-waaa!!"

Quote from: Fruityloop
  I'm not insisting that it can't be stretched due to the time being taken for the transmission of movement from the balls to go along the chain.  These are two very different meanings of the word 'stretched'.
Like hell there is.

I can't take all the imbecilic crap that you're posting. Therefore since you're a fragging coward who doesn't dare contact a university professor whose an authority on SR to ask him and because you're also a rude cowardly SOB who refuses to answer my questions but has no problem asking them, I refuse to point out the further twisting of my and everyone else's words that you'll undoubtedly post after this.

You've been proven wrong, period. Be a man and suck it up!
 

Offline Fruityloop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Special Relativity falsified.
« Reply #28 on: 03/08/2015 05:06:45 »
Quote
What part of the sentence nobody is suggesting that something is being transmitted FTL do you see the words "nobody is saying that the chain is a rigid body"?
Um.. because a rigid body would allow the transmission of molecular movement faster than light.

Quote from: Fruityloop
Now you turn around and claim that I'm treating the chain as a rigid body which is incorrect.
Quote from: PmbPhy
Yet once again you're twisting what you're reading. There's no place in that comment where I claimed such a thing.
Oh really?....
Quote from: PmbPhy
These textbooks explain that there are no rigid bodies in nature and that's what your argument is based on, i.e. the existence of a rigid body. In this case the chain.
Quote from: PmbPhy
How long it stretches for is frame dependent. All you really did was to choose a frame of reference that is moving so damn fast that the stretching of the chain takes 4 minutes and its for that reason you chose such a speedy frame, i.e. so you could claim that it's taking too long
Correct. This is why Special Relativity is falsified.
Quote from: Fruityloop
Let's be clear about what is meant by the word 'stretched'.  I'm insisting that the chain can't be stretched for nearly 4 minutes.  I'm not insisting that it can't be stretched due to the time being taken for the transmission of movement from the balls to go along the chain.  These are two very different meanings of the word 'stretched'.
Quote from: PmbPhy
Like hell there is.
[?]
That's so funny that doesn't even deserve a response.
 

Online PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2768
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Special Relativity falsified.
« Reply #29 on: 03/08/2015 06:06:17 »
Quote from: Fruityloop
That's so funny that doesn't even deserve a response.
You're not bright enough to understand why you're so friggin wrong here so I won't bother trying, especially since I already explained that I won't bother correcting anymore of your flawed reasoning such as this ghastly mistake and I meant it. You simply don't have what it takes to learn SR properly and this childish behavior isn't going to help you. You can't provoke me into correcting you again with childish comments. I know this to be your immature way of attempting to get the last word in. Since only children need to do that I'll let you have it since it's a given that you'll say something incredibly stupid in your next post.

But you've been proven wrong. Suck it up, coward.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Special Relativity falsified.
« Reply #30 on: 03/08/2015 19:46:04 »

That's so funny that doesn't even deserve a response.
No, it's not funny at all, frankly it's sad. Pete has tried to explain your errors to you and it appears you are not equipped to understand SR. I suggest you open up a good book on the subject and try to absorb enough of the proven evidence that minds greater than mine, yours, and yes, even Pete's have contributed to the subject. Pete is one of the brightest and well studied members here at TNS so his thoughts and opinions merit sincere consideration.

Take our advice and learn SR before you make misinformed claims about it. When you do, you'll see why you were in error.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2015 19:57:17 by Ethos_ »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Special Relativity falsified.
« Reply #30 on: 03/08/2015 19:46:04 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length