[guest39538]

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.

Nice sarcasm.

[Ethos_]

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.

Nice sarcasm.

Now why on earth would anyone think I was being sarcastic? 

[guest39538]

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.

Nice sarcasm.

Now why on earth would anyone think I was being sarcastic?

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad, so I do not think I will have so much as a pop science following , let alone any awards.  However, the world as not really ever heard me say anything, maybe deep down I do not want them to listen.

[Ethos_]

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad, so I do not think I will have so much as a pop science following , let alone any awards.  However, the world as not really ever heard me say anything, maybe deep down I do not want them to listen.

Dear Sir, the honest scientist will always be just as eager to question his own views with the same degree of scrutiny he applies to those of others. Until you begin to take all pertinent evidence into consideration and learn to set aside your personal prejudice, few other individuals will be willing to reciprocate.

Hear me out Mr. Box, no one here wishes you to fail. But unless you learn to consider the views of others with the same credibility that you offer your personal views, your success with others will suffer. We've all tried to communicate with you many times over. But your unwillingness to give our comments any credibility frustrates us to no end. For this reason, any success you wish to achieve with us will be very limited indeed.

I would like to offer you some friendly advice, please don't feel that I'm being condescending because that is not my wish. I would truly like for us all to grow together and that includes yourself as well.

So here is my advice:

Place the same degree of value on what others have to say as the degree you place upon your own views. The truth will stand when nothing else will. Have a little faith in that process. When you disagree with someone else, it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence in a tactful manner. If you simply reject their views offhand, you'll only sacrifice any further growth either of you will have opportunity to gain.

Take my advice into consideration my friend, I think we will all profit as a result.

Sincerely................................Ethos

[guest39538]

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad, so I do not think I will have so much as a pop science following , let alone any awards.  However, the world as not really ever heard me say anything, maybe deep down I do not want them to listen.

Dear Sir, the honest scientist will always be just as eager to question his own views with the same degree of scrutiny he applies to those of others. Until you begin to take all pertinent evidence into consideration and learn to set aside your personal prejudice, few other individuals will be willing to reciprocate.

Hear me out Mr. Box, no one here wishes you to fail. But unless you learn to consider the views of others with the same credibility that you offer your personal views, your success with others will suffer. We've all tried to communicate with you many times over. But your unwillingness to give our comments any credibility frustrates us to no end. For this reason, any success you wish to achieve with us will be very limited indeed.

I would like to offer you some friendly advice, please don't feel that I'm being condescending because that is not my wish. I would truly like for us all to grow together and that includes yourself as well.

So here is my advice:

Place the same degree of value on what others have to say as the degree you place upon your own views. The truth will stand when nothing else will. Have a little faith in that process. When you disagree with someone else, it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence in a tactful manner. If you simply reject their views offhand, you'll only sacrifice any further growth either of you will have opportunity to gain.

Take my advice into consideration my friend, I think we will all profit as a result.

Sincerely................................Ethos

 I thank you Ethos for the virtue, I am glad you are not totally dissuaded by my often gibberish and aim to get straight to the point by-passing present information totally.

I do not reject views off hand, but often I know the views already and my views are not really discussed, although partly my fault by my poor wording that people fail to understand.


One think is certain, I know what an axiom is, so when people argue an axiom I have to defend it because it is not just relative , it is reality.

So please let me start again, is distance an absolute invariant?

 I personally think that distance is an invariant being different to a length which can be variant.

 I define distance as the observed space from an observer without knowing a measurement or having a reference point B, where as length I define between two points.  Would you agree with the way I define distance and length, is this a generalised description?

 

[alancalverd]

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad,

The symptom of madness is your disagreeing with the world.

[guest39538]

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad,

The symptom of madness is your disagreeing with the world.

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors? 


There is no madness in sanity and realisation Alan, I challenge not your intelligence, but maybe the world simply does not use it . I observe no logic or rational thinking.

[guest39538]

''Distance is a scalar quantity that refers to "how much ground an object has covered" during its motion. Displacement is a vector quantity that refers to "how far out of place an object is"; it is the object's overall change in position.''


Distance is presently defined as the above, I read that to be an expanding length rather than a distance definition?

My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.

[alancalverd]

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors? 

This isn't about people, whose beliefs and opinions are of no great interest to either of us, but the observable world, which interests me a great deal but seems to have no impact on you at all.

My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.

From which I deduce that your native language is Chinese. There is a famous line from a phonetic Chinese to English dictionary: "Chew" - to stand still, to gallop at full speed. Apparently the meaning depends on the context, but what if the context is "I saw a horse...."? Now we are talking Zen.

[guest39538]

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors? 

This isn't about people, whose beliefs and opinions are of no great interest to either of us, but the observable world, which interests me a great deal but seems to have no impact on you at all.

The observable world and even the  unobservable as been my world for several years now.  Things what I have learnt do not equal to my observations, my observations are axioms based on observation.   The things beyond observation I have logically thought about and rationally put things together based on science present information that  lead me to my conclusions.  My conclusions also being axioms by logical reasoning that often give  only one definite conclusion.   There is no uncertainty in some of my thoughts. 

[guest39538]

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors? 

This isn't about people, whose beliefs and opinions are of no great interest to either of us, but the observable world, which interests me a great deal but seems to have no impact on you at all.

My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.

From which I deduce that your native language is Chinese. There is a famous line from a phonetic Chinese to English dictionary: "Chew" - to stand still, to gallop at full speed. Apparently the meaning depends on the context, but what if the context is "I saw a horse...."? Now we are talking Zen.

Why not reply with , can you please explain better. Why are so biased towards me of late, I apologise if I offended you in any way personally. I live with a Narcissist, understand that.

[guest39538]

''My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.''


This is plain English, but for those who read it differently,

Distance is apparent without motion or a further away observation point.


Distance is the unmeasured space expanding from an observer.


A length is the measured space expanding from an observer to a separate point.

[Ethos_]

 I define distance as the observed space from an observer without knowing a measurement or having a reference point B, where as length I define between two points.  Would you agree with the way I define distance and length, is this a generalised description?

Actually, Webster's defines distance as; "a gap, space, or interval between two points in space or time."

And length as; "the distance from end to end of a thing".

And because language is the interpretive expression of what the minds imagination understands as reality, and that interpretation is rendered by majority consent, it appears to me that distance and length are quite similar.

The only difference one might suggest is Webster's associates a length of something with "a thing". And most scientists agree that space is "a thing" as well.

I realize you prefer to define space as nothing Mr. Box. The problem with that interpretation of reality is we've proved that space is filled with fields of many different sorts, and can not be considered as nothingness. In fact, if we remove the substance of space, you and I would probably not survive the change.

It also troubles me to hear you suggest that there is somehow a conspiracy abreast. For that to be true, 99.9% of the scientific community would have to be involved. And considering how many different views are afloat out there, total collaboration would never be possible.

[jeffreyH]

At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.

[guest39538]

At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.

  yes a congrats , but that does not mean  not discuss other things,

[guest39538]

 I define distance as the observed space from an observer without knowing a measurement or having a reference point B, where as length I define between two points.  Would you agree with the way I define distance and length, is this a generalised description?

Actually, Webster's defines distance as; "a gap, space, or interval between two points in space or time."

And length as; "the distance from end to end of a thing".

And because language is the interpretive expression of what the minds imagination understands as reality, and that interpretation is rendered by majority consent, it appears to me that distance and length are quite similar.

The only difference one might suggest is Webster's associates a length of something with "a thing". And most scientists agree that space is "a thing" as well.

I realize you prefer to define space as nothing Mr. Box. The problem with that interpretation of reality is we've proved that space is filled with fields of many different sorts, and can not be considered as nothingness. In fact, if we remove the substance of space, you and I would probably not survive the change.

It also troubles me to hear you suggest that there is somehow a conspiracy abreast. For that to be true, 99.9% of the scientific community would have to be involved. And considering how many different views are afloat out there, total collaboration would never be possible.

hmm, yes those definitions sound like like they are not explaining different things ,  I always considered the length of an object, the length of space between objects, and distance being the word to describe a unmeasured length.   Consider your own words , we have proved space is filled with fields, now to fill something , does it not have to be empty to start offrom with.?
NOTHING IS NEGATIVE ,

[Ethos_]

At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.

I agree Jeff, it is becoming quite tiresome to rehash over and over with no progress in sight.................

[guest39538]

At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.

I agree Jeff, it is becoming quite tiresome to rehash over and over with no progress in sight.................

I can do new..

time and distance expansion, not dilation.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]