[jeffreyH]

I am unaware of any problem arising from the absence of a fixed background, that is not attributable to human vanity!

Then I propose that we agree to disagree. I do appreciate that you don't want readers to get the wrong impression of scientific theories from posts made by amateurs. This is a problem I also wish to avoid.

[timey]

I am unaware of any problem arising from the absence of a fixed background, that is not attributable to human vanity!

Does this mean that it is an act of human vanity to suppose that one might truly understand the universe as an entirety, and be able to chart the universe, as we do our earth, in full detail of knowledge, via a theory of everything?

Because this is indeed what some, around 300, or so I've read, hardcore theoretical physicists are doing where quantum gravity is concerned.  By linking quantum to gravity, mass and gravitational field considerations would then indeed give both quantum and relativity an absolute reference frame from which to be equated.

Seems a reasonable enough quest to me Alan... You've surprise me with this comment really... I didn't think that you of all people would be paying any such blind homage to anything at all, let alone the 'church' of relativity....

[Ethos_]

Then I propose that we agree to disagree. I do appreciate that you don't want readers to get the wrong impression of scientific theories from posts made by amateurs. This is a problem I also wish to avoid.

This forum has a number of intelligent members of which I consider both Jeff and Alan to be a couple of the brightest. But I'm also sure that a majority here also realize, with proper humility, that humanity has by now means learned it all. Case in point; When anyone comes here to our forum and positions themselves as the only authority intelligent enough to understand when everyone else is somehow stupid, they should expect to suffer a great deal of grief from us. I think everyone knows who I'm talking about and it's certainly not Alan nor Jeff.

[timey]

I really can't think for the life of me why anyone here should be given grief for anything at-all, or why anyone should wish to waste their valuable time ie: life, here on earth dishing out such measures.  I have visited forums that seem to purposefully extrapolate this type of X factor psychology in what I consider to be a most disturbing display of bad character from all parties.

Why participate if it's not questioning, informative, or funny...?

If box isn't outright taking the piss here at times, which is the most likely scenario in my book, then he is in fact a bit challenged, or disturbed.  Does someone who is challenged or disturbed need grief Ethos?  And also...you talk about 'our' forum here...  Can I have a list of 'us', please, just so I'm in the know, like...?

Oh, and while your at it, sorry to put you on the spot, but who do reckon is more intelligent?  Alan?  Or Jeff? 

[Ethos_]

  Does someone who is challenged or disturbed need grief Ethos? 

Whether he is challenged or disturbed is beyond my reckoning. What he is however is mistaken and continues to insist he's not. If he wants to act like the only authority, he should be up to the criticism.

And also...you talk about 'our' forum here...  Can I have a list of 'us', please, just so I'm in the know, like...?

If you'll look at the top of the page, there is a section called "Members".

Oh, and while your at it, sorry to put you on the spot, but who do reckon is more intelligent?  Alan?  Or Jeff? 

I'll not fall into that trap timey, BTW both are much more intelligent than a few we have collected here lately.

[timey]

Well, I'll not disagree with you in relation to the criticism, but I must say I have a degree of curiosity as to what leads you to the desire to dish it out...

Ah yes... Top of page 'members', I'm somewhat relieved to find my name is there...oh, and lo and behold...so is Thebox...'s

What's 'trappy' about asking who you think is more intelligent?  It's entirely unlikely that either gives a hoot what you, or I, think.  I not sure that I've yet made up my mind personally.  Alan's more fun, that's for sure, and more experienced, don't need to be Einstein to work that one out.  Jeff is pretty sharp on his toes though, I'll give him that, and have never said otherwise...

Clearly you are referring to box as being one of the few who are less intelligent than both, but the fact of the word 'few' within the sentence indicates that you believe others are also less intelligent.  Can you tell me who these others are please?  It's just that I'm now making an assessment of your intelligence, and I'm quite sure I'll find that your own assessment of a persons intelligence will help me...

[Ethos_]

  Can you tell me who these others are please?  It's just that I'm now making an assessment of your intelligence, and I'm quite sure I'll find that your own assessment of a persons intelligence will help me...

I'll let you make up your own mind on that one my friend. Here is a key that will help you make the informed decision: Read through their posts, when you find contradictions and errors, their intelligence becomes quite evident.

And as far as your assessment of my intelligence, if I may be so blunt; The honest search for reality is more important than intelligence. One can be quite intelligent, but if they are dishonest enough to dismiss evidence offhand just to preserve their own vision of reality, they will never achieve any thing of significance. It takes both timey, intelligence and an honest assessment of experimental observation, whether those observations fit in neatly with ones biased predisposed positions or not.

 

[guest39538]

Well we have all been busy discussing me and not discussing science, I take it , this assumption that I am stupid is the last resort for your own lack of understanding.

I do not have to justify myself to anybody, so all new theories or anybody who wishes to question present information and discourse that information is stupid hey?

Grow up....this is not a school yard.

What  rude and arrogant people, a good lesson to the young or anyone wishing to study science, just don't bother, because if you question anything, you will be insulted , if you have a new idea, they will claim it garbage.

May as well just read it on wiki, say nothing even when you know they are proper wrong.

So what do you think your right is to call people stupid ?

Because you can remember Wiki?

oh dear the hilariousness of this  people thinking they are clever because they have a good memory,

[Ethos_]

I am unaware of any problem arising from the absence of a fixed background, that is not attributable to human vanity!

Then I propose that we agree to disagree. I do appreciate that you don't want readers to get the wrong impression of scientific theories from posts made by amateurs. This is a problem I also wish to avoid.

And this is the reason I appreciate you both Jeff. Both Alan and yourself are honest enough and studious enough to search out realities and defend the standard model against those who would disassemble it. While the standard model may need some tweaking, it is by far the best standard by which we judge natures realities.

Those who would do away with it completely are only interested in grandstanding and not the least interested in preserving the results from tested and tried experiment. These people represent the highest degree of selfishness common to man and should be confronted when they attempt to spread their garbage. Civil discussion is quite acceptable but for those whos agenda is only about spreading their point of view at the expense of everyone else, the burden of proof will fall upon them.
\

[jeffreyH]

If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

[guest39538]

There is a big difference in discussing somebodies idea, and ''preaching'' back present information.


There is nothing to be so defensive about, surely people can decide for themselves what they consider gibberish?


There is no need to keep quoting back time is this, or this is this, how many times must I tell these forums I can read and do have google search to look up these things.

The conversation would be rather boring in a new theory section if the theory was an old theory .

What is time ?

Time is blah, blah,

end of conversation


what sort of discussion would that be?   what sort of discussion would it be if I didn't apply any logical pressure about things and just said, ''yes sir, I accept that'' do I pass now?

Nobody seems to even know what a discussion is.

Nobody ever proves my idea wrong. So yes I am stuck trying until science proves me wrong on things.


Distance is an invariant yes?

[Ethos_]

Nobody ever proves my idea wrong. So yes I am stuck trying until science proves me wrong on things.

It's not incumbent upon us to prove you wrong, the burden of proof lies squarely upon you Mr. Box. As yet, you have shown us nothing but poor math and "your logical" speculation.

[guest39538]

Nobody ever proves my idea wrong. So yes I am stuck trying until science proves me wrong on things.

It's not incumbent upon us to prove you wrong, the burden of proof lies squarely upon you Mr. Box. As yet, you have shown us nothing but poor math and "your logical" speculation.

Most of the time I ask direct question, I do not get a direct answer, mostly I am left confused why my questions are hard to answer.

Is distance an invariant, is a length of a distance invariant?

(notice no mass mentioned, no objects, no time, no light waves etc, so you can presume I mean space.)


I will draw a little diagram


d=0∞.......................L=A-----------------------B..............................0∞

My question in diagram form

[Ethos_]

Is distance an invariant, is a length of a distance invariant?

You have stated time and time again that you don't believe in time dilation. And several members have answered you in the negative. And I believe the question of length contraction has already been answered as well.

If one views space and time as a single entity, as most scientists do, time dilation and length contraction are the standard view when considering the effect of near light speed upon the observed object. This has been pointed out to you many times so don't tell us we never answer your questions.

Space/time must be viewed as a continuum and trying to separate the two will not receive much consideration in scientific circles.

Caution Mr. Box, I'm at this point very unwilling to argue the point with you. You have my answer as well as many others. And you have constantly argued that we are wrong and you are right. Believe that if you must, but you're views are in the vast minority so convincing us of them falls squarely upon your shoulders. Problem is, you've already tried and have gotten little if any results. You have spent more time and bandwidth spelling out your position compared to the total contribution of other members so maybe it's time to give it a break.

As for myself, I'm tired of listening to your gibberish.

Over and OUT.................................

[alancalverd]

Does this mean that it is an act of human vanity to suppose that one might truly understand the universe as an entirety, and be able to chart the universe, as we do our earth, in full detail of knowledge, via a theory of everything?

Yes. But it's not a reason for not trying.

Because this is indeed what some, around 300, or so I've read, hardcore theoretical physicists are doing where quantum gravity is concerned.  By linking quantum to gravity, mass and gravitational field considerations would then indeed give both quantum and relativity an absolute reference frame from which to be equated.

Not quite the same thing as a fixed background through which all things move with absolute velocities.

Seems a reasonable enough quest to me Alan... You've surprise me with this comment really... I didn't think that you of all people would be paying any such blind homage to anything at all, let alone the 'church' of relativity....

Not a blind homage, but a realisation that with the successive abolition of anthrocentrism, geocentrism, heliocentrism and the universal aether, our theories have approximated ever closer to observation and our models of the universe have become ever simpler. If your goal is to provide the simplest, most selfconsistent and most accurately predictive hypothesis, it's probably a good idea to start from a relativist rather than an absolutist axiom. 

[alancalverd]

Is distance an invariant, is a length of a distance invariant?

This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.

[jeffreyH]

Imagine two large masses a distance S apart. Now remove those two objects. What is the value of S? Has it changed since the masses were removed? Does it even have the same meaning with no masses to reference?

If we consider that gravity is said to curve the spacetime more prominently around large masses then can we say S has in fact changed? For an object traveling along the path described by S, now as a vector, could we determine a difference with and without the masses present? We then need to consider frames of reference. Without the masses present these frames may or may not describe a flat spacetime.

Lastly we can consider minima and maxima. Particularly of length contraction. Where would you find the minimum or maximum length contraction within the universe? Are there multiple minima and maxima?

Now, Thebox, do not claim that this is what you meant all along. I won't stand for it.

[Ethos_]

If your goal is to provide the simplest, most selfconsistent and most accurately predictive hypothesis, it's probably a good idea to start from a relativist rather than an absolutist axiom.

Amen Alan...................

Woops, Mr. Box will probably accuse me of pushing religion because I wrote the word: "Amen"

[timey]

Does this mean that it is an act of human vanity to suppose that one might truly understand the universe as an entirety, and be able to chart the universe, as we do our earth, in full detail of knowledge, via a theory of everything?

Yes. But it's not a reason for not trying.

Because this is indeed what some, around 300, or so I've read, hardcore theoretical physicists are doing where quantum gravity is concerned.  By linking quantum to gravity, mass and gravitational field considerations would then indeed give both quantum and relativity an absolute reference frame from which to be equated.

Not quite the same thing as a fixed background through which all things move with absolute velocities.

Seems a reasonable enough quest to me Alan... You've surprise me with this comment really... I didn't think that you of all people would be paying any such blind homage to anything at all, let alone the 'church' of relativity....

Not a blind homage, but a realisation that with the successive abolition of anthrocentrism, geocentrism, heliocentrism and the universal aether, our theories have approximated ever closer to observation and our models of the universe have become ever simpler. If your goal is to provide the simplest, most selfconsistent and most accurately predictive hypothesis, it's probably a good idea to start from a relativist rather than an absolutist axiom.

1) agreed
2) 'fixed background' not my choice of terminology,, but...och, trust a physicist to be pernickity
3)  nice use of wording there (chuckle), very subtle!  And yes, it is true that relativity and quantum would have to form the basis of any new theory, as these are our best working hypothesis.

BTW, Alan, it hasn't surprised me in the slightest that nobody has asked if I think I'm more intelligent than you or Jeff.  Considering the personal circumstances, no fault of your own I conclude, but I really hadn't expected any of you to make this realisation..  The fact that no one has just being further proof to myself of my superior intelligence. Lol, lol!  Righto - back to bed smartish would be smartish.

[Colin2B]

BTW, Alan, it hasn't surprised me in the slightest that nobody has asked if I think I'm more intelligent than you or Jeff. 

We were taking that as an axiom   []