[Craig W. Thomson]

Interesting , I fall into the neither , I believe the visual Lorentz contraction of a body in motion is just a thing of light perception, however I consider the object in motion, the length expands and is stretched by the force of gravity puling it backwards, like an elastic band stretching rather than a contraction.

What is that, the Bob Clampett explanation of Lorentz animation? I guess that's what I get for suggesting I was pancake-shaped. You're frigging hilarious, TheBox, like, seriously.

[guest39538]

Interesting , I fall into the neither , I believe the visual Lorentz contraction of a body in motion is just a thing of light perception, however I consider the object in motion, the length expands and is stretched by the force of gravity puling it backwards, like an elastic band stretching rather than a contraction.

What is that, the Bob Clampett explanation of length contraction? I guess that's what I get for suggesting I was pancake-shaped. You're frigging hilarious, TheBox, like, seriously.

Seriously, consider at this time in your location you are stretched between two points, however the nearest point contracts you , if you were to to magically start to hover and mover a vertical path upwards you would stretch the space-time that holds you contracted becoming stretched yourself, as you reached  the the other body, your stretched length then contracts again relative to the other bodies gravitational strength. 

I understand this relativistic affect is hard to swallow, I am sure you will glance in dismay, but I do not consider one way journey and affect , I consider all the parameters.

[agyejy]

I clearly stated - we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter.


You reply - ''This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.''


Obviously your agenda is not to read.

You clearly indicated that you believed that current scientific understanding says that mass attracts mass. You even used a little fictional conversation between a fictional "user" that clearly represented you and "science". I simply pointed out that science never made that argument.

''You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. ''


I understand more than you do for a certainty. do not come into my threads quoting wiki and pretending you are a scientist, you will be soon shown that your ability to personally think is none existent. ....

This is a non-sequitur.

When you raise an object of the ground, the mass of the object increase relative to the rest mass, an example -the object of 45 kg hits the ground at an equivalent to 90 kg.  ?

An object might hit the ground with a force equivalent to the weight of a 90kg object but this is only true under very specific circumstances in regards to exactly how long it takes the falling object to decelerate after first contacting the ground and the mass of the object. Raising the object does not increase its mass in the way you describe.

Switching people I am addressing now.

Then try a new arrangement until you manage to finally say something sensible.

(shrugs)

Please refrain from attempts at provocation. It does not in anyway help your cause.

FALSE, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I'll let an actual scientist speak for me this time:

...

So, practice what you preach: "You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn."

None of the things you quoted actually disapprove my statement. Clearly definitions of matter can be confused and inexact but that inexactness is never so bad that it is wrong to say that matter is attracted to matter. Further, I point you to several other parts of that very article which you seemed to ignore:

Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.

Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway).  But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.

(Emphasis mine.)

Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar.  All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.

The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles.  At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.

These are all points that I have made to you and you have disputed. Since you have clearly held up this person as an authority on these things that should be believed over both you and me then you currently have no choice but to admit that you are wrong in exactly the ways I indicated earlier.

A good example: Mass and energy are equivalent. True. Mass is not energy. True. Mass is made of energy. True or false, depending on how you look at it.

Mass and energy are properties of things. Properties are not things and therefore can not be made from something. Things have a property. Properties are not made out of things. I point you once again to the website you linked:

Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway).  But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.

(Emphasis mine.)

If energy isn't stuff but stuff has energy then energy must be a property just like mass is a property. Relativity has taught us that the properties of mass and energy are really describing the same thing.

I'm not trying to be an authority on this subject, though I do know a few things about it. Nevertheless, I will probably make even more contradictory statements in the future, and so will you, and so will everyone else because that is the nature of the subject matter, so I don't really understand what you are complaining about here.

When correctly stated and understood science is not contradictory. The scientific method is pretty much designed to identify and remove contradictory ideas from any system of thought to which it is applied. Sometimes to the layman even correctly stated science can sound contradictory but that is simple a symptom of a lack of understanding.

[guest39538]

Raising the object does not increase its mass in the way you describe.

You clearly give that very little thought.   non-sequitur  , I am just trying to remember who says that off the other forums.

[agyejy]

You clearly give that very little thought.

I gave it exactly as much thought as was required to come to the correct conclusion.

[guest39538]

I gave it exactly as much thought as was required to come to the correct conclusion.

You clearly  did not give it enough though, if you  had you would realise the relativistic affect of mass increase which I have explained.  Clearly you are clued up to present information but that does not mean you are in a position of having the ability to think about new information. If you are not interesting in this discussion with no other purpose but to post present information back, may I suggest you are in the wrong thread.

In a baby example of relativistic mass, hold an house brick in your hand at arms length, I assure you within a short time you will feel the effects of relativistic  mass increase.

Try the same experiment with the brick on the ground, you will not experience the relativistic mass increase.

[agyejy]

You clearly  did not give it enough though, if you  had you would realise the relativistic affect of mass increase which I have explained.  Clearly you are clued up to present information but that does not mean you are in a position of having the ability to think about new information. If you are not interesting in this discussion with no other purpose but to post present information back, may I suggest you are in the wrong thread.

The concept of mass and the theory of relativity do not work the way you think they do. You seem to be incapable of understanding the distinction between the force exerted by something when that something is undergoing an acceleration and the magnitude of its mass. I suspect you are also having trouble understanding the concept of net force and net acceleration.

In a baby example of relativistic mass, hold an house brick in your hand at arms length, I assure you within a short time you will feel the effects of relativistic  mass increase.

Try the same experiment with the brick on the ground, you will not experience the relativistic mass increase.

Case in point this has absolutely no connection to the theory of relativity. I assume you are attempting to reference the perceived increase of weight of a held object as your muscles become tired. This is an illusion produced by your brain interpreting signals from your muscles. You muscle fibers cannot stay contracted without a source of chemical energy. The longer you attempt to keep your muscles fibers contracted the more chemical energy they have to be supplied with and the less time the cells in the fiber have to clean out the waste products from using that chemical energy. Two things eventually happen. The first is that if the muscle fibers need more energy than you can naturally produce they eventually run out of energy and send signals to your brain telling you that they are tired which your brain interprets as the object getting heavier. The second is that if the muscle cells are producing more waste than your body can remove from the muscle cells the waste builds up and the muscle cells send pain signals that eventually will cause your brain to tell the muscles to stop contracting so the waste can be removed. If your brain didn't do that the cells would be damaged and die.

[guest39538]

                                       

The concept of mass and the theory of relativity do not work the way you think they do.

Really ?  so mass, the theory of relativity, special relativity, all written down, is all written in some ancient language and there is only you that can understand it?

[agyejy]

                                       

The concept of mass and the theory of relativity do not work the way you think they do.

Really ?  so mass, the theory of relativity, special relativity, all written down, is all written in some ancient language and there is only you that can understand it?

That would be another non-sequitur. The fact that you do not understand the concept of mass and the theory of relativity does not in anyway indicate anything about either of those things. It certainly does not imply that I think only I can understand them. It only implies things about you, your current level of understanding, and perhaps your ability to reason. Given time and a willingness to listen to/learn from reasoned arguments and observational evidence you could learn to understand these things. The only barrier between you and understanding is your behavior.

[Ethos_]

Say something about science, or shut your trap.

Let's get something straight, I'll offer my opinions and or my understanding when and wherever I choose. You can take your insults and put them where the sun don't shine Mr. T.

And BTW, it's clear to many of us that you haven't taken the time or effort to examine my activity here at TNS, if you had and could get over your touchy and offended act, it would be clear to you that I also come here to discuss science.

So........get over it!

[guest39538]

That would be another non-sequitur. The fact that you do not understand the concept of mass and the theory of relativity does not in anyway indicate anything about either of those things. It certainly does not imply that I think only I can understand them. It only implies things about you, your current level of understanding, and perhaps your ability to reason. Given time and a willingness to listen to/learn from reasoned arguments and observational evidence you could learn to understand these things. The only barrier between you and understanding is your behavior.

You are seriously arrogant and trying to flame by again being intentionally presumption , you  understand but I  don't understand, your arrogance is overwhelming.   

You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?


I am beginning to agree with C.W you are coming across like some stalker.


We are in a that can't be true section, me and CW are having an intellectual gibberish  conversation, talking hypothetical situations and all sorts of rubbish or not so rubbish, you are welcome to join in talking , just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.

Look I can read

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

I can watch

There is nothing complicated about any of it.

[Ethos_]

You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?

Remember I warned you about that paranoia?

just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.

Mr. Box,......agyejy has as much right to question your beliefs and presumed facts as you have to question his. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has the right to command anyone here to stop their objections to your views or anyone else's..............................PERIOD

[guest39538]

You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?

Remember I warned you about that paranoia?

just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.

Mr. Box,......agyejy has as much right to question your beliefs and presumed facts as you have to question his. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has the right to command anyone here to stop their objections to your views or anyone else's..............................PERIOD

It is not a bother if he comes on and says I am wrong for this reason of logic  , but to keep repeating that I don't understand is very wrong and that is what is winding me up .

[agyejy]

You are seriously arrogant and trying to flame by again being intentionally presumption , you  understand but I  don't understand, your arrogance is overwhelming. 

Being correct isn't arrogant and demonstrating that statement someone has made is incorrect is not flaming.

You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?


I am beginning to agree with C.W you are coming across like some stalker.

You really are starting to sound a bit paranoid.

We are in a that can't be true section, me and CW are having an intellectual gibberish  conversation, talking hypothetical situations and all sorts of rubbish or not so rubbish, you are welcome to join in talking , just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.

Why? What obligation do I have not to prove that the statements you are making are incorrect?

Look I can read

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

I can watch

There is nothing complicated about any of it.

The ability to read something or watch something is not the same as the ability to understand something. This is especially true when you refuse to alter your opinions and viewpoints when presented with reasoned arguments and observational evidence. One also has to be careful of the provenance of the sources of information they learn from.

Mr. Box,......agyejy has as much right to question your beliefs and presumed facts as you have to question his. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has the right to command anyone here to stop their objections to your views or anyone else's..............................PERIOD

Well technically this is a privately owned space and thus the owners of the space and/or their representatives have that right. We generally call that moderation.

[Ethos_]

It is not a bother if he comes on and says I am wrong for this reason of logic  , but to keep repeating that I don't understand is very wrong and that is what is winding me up .

So.......he's supposed to agree with you when he feels you are mistaken? Listen Box, there is no shame in being mistaken, we all have been at some time in our lives. What is shameful however is to reject offhand everything someone else has to offer without considering their position. A word to the wise is sufficient.............................

[guest39538]

Being correct isn't arrogant and demonstrating that statement someone has made is incorrect is not flaming.

Ok, you obviously think you are smart, so obviously it should be really easy for you to use all your knowledge to prove this ''idiot'' wrong.


Time does not exist, anything after 0 measurement is instant  history.


Prove that wrong , come  back when you can.

[guest39538]

It is not a bother if he comes on and says I am wrong for this reason of logic  , but to keep repeating that I don't understand is very wrong and that is what is winding me up .

So.......he's supposed to agree with you when he feels you are mistaken? Listen Box, there is no shame in being mistaken, we all have been at some time in our lives. What is shameful however is to reject offhand everything someone else has to offer without considering their position. A word to the wise is sufficient.............................

Well I have raised the pirate flag in this thread and put our friend to the test.  We will see if he can think for himself or just another book hog.

[Ethos_]

Well technically this is a privately owned space and thus the owners of the space and/or their representatives have that right. We generally call that moderation.

Yes, that is true agyejy but is usually only enforced when someone has become totally rude and insulting. In any case, I think you know the spirit of my remark and why I said it.

[guest39538]

Well technically this is a privately owned space and thus the owners of the space and/or their representatives have that right. We generally call that moderation.

Yes, that is true agyejy but is usually only enforced when someone has become totally rude and insulting. In any case, I think you know the spirit of my remark and why I said it.

To me it looks like you are trying to infiltrate into this forum like they/you did over at phys forum, that forum is now shut, it is not paranoia, you clearly seem as if you know  ag.

[Ethos_]

To me it looks like you are trying to infiltrate into this forum like they/you did over at phys forum, that forum is now shut, it is not paranoia, you clearly seem as if you know  ag.

I have never had any correspondence with the fellow Mr. Box. Other than his activity here at TNS. I'm being totally up front with you about this, I have had no affiliation with him whatsoever. Nevertheless, I find his posts intelligent and in agreement with current scientific theory.

I seriously think you would benefit from an honest study of relativity and when I say study, I mean consider the views from the experts before you start making up new theories on your own.  Give it an honest try, you may be surprised at how your perception of reality might change.