0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
Those who claim that understood relativity, automatly acknowledge that they understood nonsense ...
Since many years I have been explaining in various publications what time is.
Now I have been accused of spouting nonsense ...
Quote from: niebieskieuchoThose who claim that understood relativity, automatly acknowledge that they understood nonsense ... QuoteActually it is this comment which is utter nonsense.Haha. Here you have example of relativity consistencyhttp://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/relativistic-ellipse.html [nofollow] Quote from: niebieskieuchoSince many years I have been explaining in various publications what time is. QuoteHe 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, 9781780882390QuoteHe 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 [nofollow] ). Could you please let me know where I am wrong? Please note, that you cannot describe time without notion of motion, and vice versa. QuoteThe 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
Actually it is this comment which is utter nonsense.
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.
Haha. Here you have example of relativity consistencyhttp://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/relativistic-ellipse.html
I didnt mean them. But my articles (e.g. on eioba.com) or ISBN 9781844016426, ISBN 9781905399420, 9781780882390
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.
My conclusion: You dont understand what time is. Dont worry, not you alone.
Quote from: jeffreyHNow 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.
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 ?
Quote from: niebieskieucho on 14/09/2013 21:01:45I 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 [nofollow] ?QuoteYour 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?QuoteFirst 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 [nofollow]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...)
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 [nofollow] ?
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 [nofollow]
Quote from: niebieskieuchoHaha. Here you have example of relativity consistencyhttp://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/relativistic-ellipse.html [nofollow] QuoteWhen 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. QuoteYour attempt to claim that I know nothing about time is quite flawed. Sorry. You wrongly understand notion of time. QuoteYou 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. QuoteAnybody can publish books. And that's why I took advantage of it.QuoteJust ask Stephen King. It's not my field and not anybody can become King.QuoteYour 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. Quote Now let's look at the quality of them9781844016426 - Two stars out of five9781905399420 - No stars - Perhaps nobody bought it9781780882390 - No stars - Perhaps nobody bought this one tooYou 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)QuoteI never wrote a book yet. Just an online website to teach physics which is at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ [nofollow]I respect your good knowledge. You can try. QuoteAll 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. QuoteNow 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. QuoteWe 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.QuoteThis 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. QuoteAnother 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. QuoteOf 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). QuoteNow 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.
Haha. Here you have example of relativity consistencyhttp://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/relativistic-ellipse.html [nofollow]
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?
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 them9781844016426 - Two stars out of five9781905399420 - No stars - Perhaps nobody bought it9781780882390 - 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/ [nofollow]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BTW I never ask discussants about their education.