1

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 12/05/2020 23:18:19 »

Yeah I really am screwing this up.  I will drop out of the conversation.

2

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 12/05/2020 22:08:37 »

Are you sure that you know the theory of special relativity?

Before, you have to confirm 8.66 rocketsecond for rocket's speed 0.5 c according to 10 inertsecond; then  we may continue  to discuss more advanced options.

I did not mean side track this.  This is supposed to be about your idea not relativity. 
I am ok with 8.66 rocketsecond.
Could you respond to my question and comments now?
Here are the questions again:

2- According to LCS mentality:
2.1- Classical / Galilean relativity rules is valid ( like  in elementary or medium school).
This is where your ideas start to become garbled.  In Galilean relativity the speed of light would be added to the velocity of the source, but you said it wasn't, so that is not Galilean relativity.  That is one point of confusion.

2.2- We have to use a common reference frame. This frame must be most external frame in universe for light actor. So, it is space or LCS.
The all speeds (light's, Earth's, rocket's) must be adapted according to this outer space.
How does picking a 3rd frame of reference change anything?  Now you have the earth frame with a relative velocity to the rocket, a rocket frame with a velocity relative to the earth and a space frame with a relative velocity to the rocket and a relative velocity to the earth.

2.3 The emitting/leaving point of the photon is marked on LCS (rocket has passed on this point at emitting moment).
2.4 By these conditions, my figures 1 clearly explaines the light kinematics event for your example. Contact time :  t = L / (Vu (earth) + c) = 6.666  LCS second.
It looks like you are adding source velocity to the speed of light which you said you don't do?
So for your example you picked a 'space frame' that had relative velocity of zero to the rocket.  You could have just as easily picked a space frame that had zero velocity to the earth.

3

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun

« on: 12/05/2020 17:45:21 »

Yes or no.

The answer is no.  Everybody agrees the answer is no. 
You will now say then why do you think stars hang motionless over the center of the galaxy?  The answer again is nobody thinks that.
The crux of the issue is you seem to think it is impossible for a star to have an orbit that is perpendicular to the disk of the galaxy.  We disagree.  You need to show evidence that you are right.
There is evidence you are wrong,  if you look at the orbits of stars around the BH at the center of the milky way you will see they are all not aligned with the galactic plane.

4

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 12/05/2020 17:26:58 »

The reason of confusing may be to choise as the reference frame either the Earth or the rocket in the same analysis. We are allowed for one of them (for relativity method).

That part was not confusing at all.  Both frames of reference are equally valid.

1- According to SR mentality:  the photon which emitted from rocket travels the distance(L = 10 proper/inert second x  c)  for 8.66 rocketsecond.

That is not correct.  From the earth frame the photon takes 10 seconds to reach earth and from the rockets frame the photon takes 6.666 seconds to reach earth.  Neither frame thinks it takes 8.66 seconds.

2- According to LCS mentality:
2.1- Classical / Galilean relativity rules is valid ( like  in elementary or medium school). 

This is where your ideas start to become garbled.  In Galilean relativity the speed of light would be added to the velocity of the source, but you said it wasn't, so that is not Galilean relativity.  That is one point of confusion.

2.2- We have to use a common reference frame. This frame must be most external frame in universe for light actor. So, it is space or LCS.
The all speeds (light's, Earth's, rocket's) must be adapted according to this outer space. 

How does picking a 3rd frame of reference change anything?  Now you have the earth frame with a relative velocity to the rocket, a rocket frame with a velocity relative to the earth and a space frame with a relative velocity to the rocket and a relative velocity to the earth.

2.3 The emitting/leaving point of the photon is marked on LCS (rocket has passed on this point at emitting moment).
2.4 By these conditions, my figures 1 clearly explaines the light kinematics event for your example. Contact time :  t = L / (Vu (earth) + c) = 6.666  LCS second.

It looks like you are adding source velocity to the speed of light which you said you don't do?
So for your example you picked a 'space frame' that had relative velocity of zero to the rocket.  You could have just as easily picked a space frame that had zero velocity to the earth and the answer would have been 10 LCS second assuming you don't exceed c.

 3- On my figure 2: Another option of 1.5 c velocity event is exhibited. If the Earth goes to opposite direction  (toward -x ) of the photon  (the earth's speed 0.5 c) ; intermediate distance between the photon and its source will increase with 1.5 c although the photon has the speed c. This  relative speed can be called  as "hypothetical/pseudo relative speed".

Let's just finish exploring option 2.4 before moving on.

5

New Theories / Re: Did life originate on a satellite of the asteroid Vesta?

« on: 12/05/2020 12:56:38 »

Statistics strikes me as a hybrid of science and legal mumble jumble.

It is actually mathematics.
 

Anything is possible and the exceptions to the rule have lower probability. It creates the illusion of being rational but uses fuzzy dice to define valid and invalid. It remains me of defense lawyer trying to walk the fence so his criminal client can escape on a technically. Occam's Razor never assumed science would resort to legal hoaxes.

You don't realize that statistics are intimately involved in your life.  A large percentage of the amount of your bills are based on statistics.  I have used statisticians to help in the analysis of experiments that I ran and found the their analysis really helpful in quantifying the results.  I think actual results are more important than your feelings.

Consider the statical model predictions for the corona virus. They were way off. If this had been Relativity and its prediction were that far off, it would have been nipped in the bud. But the statistical virus models still lingers because the hoax approach is very flexible because of pseudo-legal arguments.

You are correct that the models are not perfect.  Is that because statistics is flawed?
I think it is about the quality of the data going into the model.  This is a new virus, so we don't know the infection rate, we don't know the death rate, we don't know rate of asymptomatic people and we don't have testing to an adequate level.  All of these unknowns lead to a model that is not going to be perfect. 

Edit to add:  Crap, you're faster than me Bored chemist!

6

New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe

« on: 12/05/2020 12:16:49 »

One simple question:
Why do we keep feeding the troll? 
I'm done.  I might pop in from time to time to give a one word reply of 'wrong', but the as we all know, it is pointless to argue with a crank.

7

New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe

« on: 12/05/2020 01:46:24 »

Thanks you all
I really appreciate your time and efforts in this discussion.

Really? Then why don't you put in a little effort to cut back on the willful ignorance and self delusion?

8

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 11/05/2020 22:52:16 »

We may think that: The 33.3 % of  the distance is  traveled by the Earth/observer. While the photon comes toward to the Earth, the Earth also approaches to the photon. The photon that  6.6666 c of the way with its constant velocity c.  Please think the process on four dimensions. The Earth is not motionless. While the actors travels the intermediate distance decreasing  and the meeting is realized at 6.6666 second. It does not mean that the photon scans the way of 10 c for the time 6.666 second. All of the event and math is logic.

But SR claims that the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for the 10 c way (please look at my former message for math.

I really do not understand your ideas.  I thought you said that the speed of light and the speed of the source was a straight addition, now it seems like it isn't, so I am confused. 
I think it would be best for me to tell you how I see this scenario occurs and then you can tell me how you see it.
So the scenario is a rocket is moving relative to earth at .5 c in the direction of earth and it shoots a laser towards earth when it is 10 Ls from earth. 
From the earths frame the rocket would be moving at .5c towards earth and the laser would be shot at 10 Ls from earth. The light would take 10 seconds to reach earth and the speed of light would be measured as c by both the earth and the rocket.  The rocket would take 20 seconds to reach earth. 
From the rockets frame the earth would be moving at .5 c towards the rocket and the rocket would shoot the laser when the earth was at a distance of 10 Ls from the rocket.  The light would take 6.6666 sec to reach the earth because the earth would have moved 3.333 Ls closer to the rocket.  The speed of light as measured by both the rocket and the earth would be c.  The earth would reach the rocket after 20 seconds.
Would your idea have a different answer than this?

9

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 10/05/2020 16:44:45 »

You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. This claim never be mine.

Yes, you did claim that!
You said:
At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 [light sec], the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS.
10 light sec/6.666 sec = 1.5c.  That is what you are saying whether you know it or not.

10

New Theories / Re: Did life originate on a satellite of the asteroid Vesta?

« on: 10/05/2020 15:13:59 »

One logical affect is the iron core of the earth is rusting

If by logical you mean bat-sh1t crazy, then I agree.

11

New Theories / Re: Did life originate on a satellite of the asteroid Vesta?

« on: 10/05/2020 15:07:00 »

Who is this guy Ocean?

Ha ha, isn't spell check great...

Ocean, Occam and basically all of us think you a crazy guy!

12

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 10/05/2020 14:08:25 »

The  surface of our paper or monitor screen is LCS (Fig. 1). At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 c, the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS. The eye contact with the photon will realize at 6.66666 seconds.

I had said the rocket was going .5c, but you prefer to use the frame of the rocket and say the earth is moving towards a motionless rocket at .5c that is fine.  Either way you agree that the photon takes 6.6666 sec to travel 10 light sec between the earth and the rocket so the speed is 1.5c.  On earth I would measure light at a speed of 1.5c, which is something that has never been seen and completely violates relativity.  You state we would measure the speed at c, but that makes no sense and I don't see any explanation of why we would measure the speed at c.
In figure 1 for picture T2 you have the photon speed of c.  Underneath that you written 2/3c, what is that there for?

Although the light source goes to the opposite direction (- x) of the photo (Fig. 2), the distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source increases with the speed of c + Vu; 

I think you made an error, you said, "distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source" the distance between the source and the source is 0, isn't it?
I do not really understand fig. 2.  Is the light source moving away from the earth at c?

However the photon velocity will always be found as c by the present measurement method/experiment.

You keep saying that but you don't say why you think that.  You clearly state the speed of the photon relative to earth is 1.5c but when we measure that speed, for some reason it is 1c!  Why?

I lost my motivation to share in this forum. I am not sure of the technical training of some of my interlocutors; because we had understanding crises on elementary issues. They also could not manage the crisis and exhibited troll behavior becouse of  prioritizing their own catharsis. As a result, this asymmetrical attitudes cannot be maintained. It is enough for me that they get the note that there are those who object to SR.

I am an engineer, I took 3 semesters of calculus based physics, I am not even remotely as smart as Einstein.  I am not angry, I'm not even annoyed, I just don't see where you have explained why a photon traveling at 1.5c relative to the earth would be measured at only 1c on earth.

13

New Theories / Re: Did life originate on a satellite of the asteroid Vesta?

« on: 10/05/2020 02:35:37 »

Occam's razor says, you a crazy guy.

14

New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe

« on: 09/05/2020 22:25:24 »

Well, it is clear to me by now that any article that not fully support your exact point of view is automatically - pop science.

This is a pop science article, but it does support the exact mainstream view. 
You wrote:

In this article they claim that this velocity is due to the expansion rate (in order to justify the BBT believer).
However, they also give the REAL explanation how this observation overcomes the relativity:

First and foremost the article does not say or imply that relativity is 'overcome'.

So what is this REAL reason you are talking about?
The article states:

But when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored.

His explanation leaves a bit to be desired but this is for people with no science education so...
He says special relativity says that objects moving relative to one another cannot exceed c.  Good enough.  He then is saying that for different spacetime coordinates or objects like galaxies that are very far apart there is another factor.

So what is this factor?

The article states:
In addition to the special relativistic motion, which occurs relative to the spacetime coordinate you're presently occupying, there's also an effect that only shows up when you start thinking in terms of general relativity: the curvature and evolution of spacetime itself.

Ah, this other factor is general relativity.

The article continues:
Whereas special relativity only takes place in uncurved, static space, the real Universe has matter and energy in it. The presence of matter/energy means that objects in our spacetime cannot be static and unchanging, but will see their spatial positions evolve with time as the very fabric of spacetime evolves. If you're in the vicinity of a large mass, like a star or a black hole, space will be curved so that you'll experience an acceleration towards that mass. This happens even in the absence of motion relative to the fabric of space itself; space is behaving like a flowing river or a moving walkway, dragging all objects along with it as it flows.

So as the article mentions multiple times the galaxies are not moving through space faster than c, the expansion is faster than c, and this an attempt clarify how general relativity is involved and this was misunderstood by you.  What a shock!

So the entire article supports the mainstream view of the BBT and says your conjecture is not possible.

So it is time for your almost superhuman willful ignorance to kick in and time for you to close your eyes and your mind to reality.

15

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 14:25:43 »

Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century

By whom
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?

To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.

Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?

Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?

But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored

Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?

16

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 13:19:18 »

Duffyd, you said you wanted to talk about evidence for God.  So why are you simply complaining about the moderation?  Get on with the evidence.

17

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 13:15:44 »

One way to address proof of God

After this opening line there were several paragraphs, but there was no proof of God, or even any supporting evidence of God.  All that was said is basically if there is a God and spirit, then maybe it works something like this.... 

Still looking for evidence.

18

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 09/05/2020 12:59:52 »

Let's just concentrate on one idea.  Let's look at you idea that the speed of light and the speed of the source is additive.

Assume a space ship is traveling towards earth and when it is 10 light seconds from earth it shoots a laser at earth.  You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c.  That of course means that it will only take 6.666 sec to reach earth.  You also say that this light when measured on earth will be measured as c, not 1.5c.  You have not given any sort of reasonable explanation of why or how this could be possible.
Please explain how that is possible. 

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How are temperature and pressure related?

« on: 09/05/2020 12:21:46 »

Ok. I was clearly overwhelmed and unprepared for this. After better considering my assumptions I recognise my theory was not presented well.

If you wanted to fly an airplane, would you read a couple of articles on flying an immediately to out and jump into pilot seat and try to take off?  I hope not.  You would take flying lessons that would entail learning the theory and have an instructor carefully teach you.
Trying to make a theory about how stars work at this point is like jumping into the pilot seat completely unprepared.  In both cases you are destined to crash and burn.

Ask questions.  Listen to the answers.  Read the articles that member suggest.  Learning about the universe is great fun!  Making up theories based on misconceptions and a lack of knowledge is a waste of time.

20

New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe

« on: 09/05/2020 11:50:43 »

I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.

Guess what, your highlight is totally wrong.
It was thought that the expansion was slowing down, but that still meant that the recession velocity increases with the  distance to a galaxy.  This is clearly explained in any decent article about expansion of the universe.