Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by RJBeery, Sep 23, 2016.
Two points, I'm defending no one, I'm just highlighting your pretentious hypocrisy
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Then learn something.
Assuming that you are right in your assessment that I am hypocrite, but when I am making a valid point then you should not bring my hypocrisy out.
I'll question and highlight your continued hypocrisy as I see it, just as I will with any of your many unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claims.
And it was no assumption either....more a well known fact.
Ok, stay ignorant about "when to utter what". You know that in science forums religion is not discussed, similarly when x is talking about something, then irrelevant observations on x are not to be pumped in. Do you get it?
An "essay"? He presents his steaming pile of feces as "Science!", and your illiteracy leads you to worship him instead of yourself?
The God, indeed. What a horse's ass.
Reported...you are incurable.
The God: thanks for reading it. My contention is that our choice in declaring "the cause" of a phenomenon is subjective when dealing with mathematical equations, given that the math is correct. I tried to make the case that inertial relative velocity would produce apparent (but illusory) time dilation as predicted by SR, but it isn't relevant anyway because declaring it illusory until acceleration is involved is technically an unfalsifiable position. By reframing the equations in terms of acceleration and distance we can reach a more aesthetically appealing "cause" for time dilation because it also applies to gravitational time dilation.
Report away, you fucking moron. I'm shivering in my boots.
Have done quick reading of the paper. It has quite polished look, you certainly spend a lot of time on it. But I dont agree with the prediction that velocity is not causing time dilation. In the past I also used to think, that acceleration is causing time dilation, but after some discussions and reading of some papers about experiments about this topic I came to conclusion that time dilation is caused by velocity, not by acceleration.
Ultron, I try to make the case that it's a false dichotomy. It isn't either velocity or acceleration, it's simply acceleration and distance. Note that acceleration times distance gives a velocity (squared), which is why the math works either way.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyone expressing such consistent anti mainstream thoughts as yourself, over all areas of cosmology, without any evidence other then rhetoric, should certainly have the agenda driving such nonsensical comments exposed for all to see.
Get it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just one question...Why did you not post this in alternative section?
You can write anything, but it would be nice, if there would be some experimental/observational support for your claims.
By the way, you can look on my try for new theory:
Here's a simple animation that shows time dilation due to motion.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Im not sure what do you want to say with this picture. Maybe you can elaborate more on it.
That time dilation is caused by differences in relative velocity?
Gravitational time dilation of course is simply due to differences in gravitational potential.
These facts have been tested time and time again, confirming all Einstein's predictions beyond doubt and despite the continued efforts of "would be's if they could be's" to somehow invalidate.
The topic was not about gravity causing time dilation. The topic was whether velocity or acceleration is causing time dilation and my understanding it that velocity is causing time dilation.
Hence my illustration. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
what's your point?
if you're going to write up a model that is (ahem) potentially reconciling GR with QM, then you need to do a lot more research than just the 4 references... that overwhelmingly smacks of a dunning-kruger based delusional crank attempt at attention
(to understand that, read up and learn about the former realitycheck poster and his "ToE" )
if it isn't falsifiable then it aint science, right?
this really should be moved to another thread (like: Free Thoughts, SciFi & Fantasy, or more specifically, Alternative Theories )
since you've derailed the thread into a discussion about your personal beliefs on who can say what, when, and where... the posting section is Forums > Science > Physics & Math, therefore it is not a place for fringe alternative dissertations where the individual attempts to redefine or reject points with no basis or evidence... especially when the OP posts later and specifically states it's "technically an unfalsifiable position"
as you noted (s)he: "squarely rejected time dilation based on relative speed. You have redefined gamma factor"
so the important questions are:
- on what basis was the redefinition or rejection made?
-where is the empirical evidence showing a valid reason or justification for the rejection or redefinition of said information?
-is it testable?
-is it falsifiable?
-is it justified through the use of researched arguments in math or physics?
if it is a no to any of those, then...
so to argue a simple point that seems to be ignored:
-if the topic is physics and math (Forums > Science > Physics & Math)
-the subject is attempting to argue from authority ( "Rhoderick J Beery III, University of Nebraska, Lincoln)
there is no means to test or falsify it
it really has no place in a science forum, but rather in a speculative or other forum like alternative theories, where people are warned ahead of time about the non-scientific nature of the essay
science has a specific meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
it isn't science by definition... especially when it, per your own claims, "squarely rejected time dilation based on relative speed. You have redefined gamma factor" and per the claims of the OP, it's not falsifiable.
what valid point did you make?
it aint science
you are simply arguing about others methodology
personally, i agree with Sapo et al. - fringe alternative beliefs without evidence do NOT belong in a science or physics thread
in science discussions, posting pseudoscience and fringe alternative belief based speculation isn't acceptable for discussion either...
arguing about someone being sincere doesn't mean it's ok to argue non-science in a science thread
But thats not an ordinary member call!
The Mods are assigned that duty, if you cannot resist the temptation then a simple line that this thread "belongs to pseudo or alternative or cespool" (or even reporting) will do. No need for persuasive advocacy here. Certainly no need to use abuses like Toad was doing. Shame on you that you tacitly justified Toad's unacceptable and streetlike behavior.
Separate names with a comma.