# The Illusion Of Time - The Fabric Of The Cosmos

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by prometheus007, Sep 12, 2015.

1. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,949
????

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fundamentals_of_Physics/Physics_and_Measurement

A meter is a unit of length, currently defined as the distance light travels within 1/299782458th of a second.

It is defined this way because the speed of light is known invariant. Before relativity, a meter was defined by a physical standard of length kept in a bell jar at controlled temperature and pressure. The standard was eventually changed to s standard number of wavelengths of photons produced by a particular hyperfine energy transition of a rare element. Of course, the invariance of the speed of light does not depend on any particular wavelength because they all travel at c in a vacuum.

If you think this is a "crock", then the rest of your questions don't matter at all. Do you have this understanding or not? A light year is not the only standard to which light's invariance in a vacuum has been applied. It applies to literally dozens of them. A standard "Jiffy' is about a 20 picoseconds, or just under a centimeter of light travel time. A light nanosecond is about a foot in physical length. I used this relation frequently in a very long and successful engineering career, for phase tracking and group delay equalization, to name only two such applications.

What technical career could you possibly have that you would think it was a "crock" that the speed of light was related to a standard of distance measurement? Have you not used any instruments that depend on calibration standards in your work? They are calibrated to laboratory standards traceable to these.

Last edited: Sep 23, 2015

3. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
Then you have missed the point of the half a century that led to modern physics. If there is no "ether wind" then what use was their unfounded belief in it in the first place?

No, the people who discovered relativity of this kind were empiricists. The main theoreticians were Maxwell, Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein. All of the findings of that era were consolidated into Einstein's 1905 paper. So now you have to decide what a theoretician is, when his or her work is entirely founded on empirical data.

But you seem to mean this as disparaging term, and as way to insinuate ether mythology into the thread. Please state where any of the folks I mentioned propounded either data or empirical explanations (theories) which hinged on the need for an aether wind. Then please explain what happened when the aether wind was disproved. Upon slogging through that, you will see what I meant by "moot".

Wrong. It was the conclusion of Fitzeau et al, which gave rise to more and better ways to study light speed. Not sure what your point is about electromagnetics. I am saying that the fact that the Lorentz factor explains the experimental results, given the findings that c is invariant, was Einstein's big contribution (just capping off what Poincare and Lorentz were on the verge of stating) but then giving us that great thought experiment, which no doubt had occupied his thoughts while a boy, learning about his father's work.

Anything not in the academic curricula is either fresh news or junk. Academia is interested in all aspects of this subject, so the second statement looks worse than grim.

I am aware of that article but I don't see any relevance to whatever you are propounding, which appears to be an attack on science and academia by trying to insinuate the ancient unfounded belief in aether into actual science, which showed that unfounded belief to be worse than unfounded. It was completely wrong.

The subject here is special relativity. The clocks disagree because one left the reference frame, and rejoined it later. Your prior statement was not correct because there is not always any appreciable influence on an experiment due to gravity. It requires that the gradient be crossed, and it complicated the discussion quite a bit. I say put that aside and let's stick with the experiments that motivated Einstein (prior to 1905) none of which had anything to do with gravity wells. Then, when we get past all of your attacks on science, we can move on to these other more complicated cases.

You are entirely resting your complaints on the ways clocks work. Please identify one experiment prior to Einstein's 1905 paper which employed a clock. When you find none, please admit that Einstein's results in 1905 were just fine.

You brought up clocks, I said, let's defer that to a thread on instrumentation. Now let's talk about the actual instruments used in the late 19th c.

Again, scuttle that boat.

Good. Put GR to bed for now, too. This thread is talking about the video.

I am beginning to think you are sure what you just said. I am only partly sure, and that last bit sounds like a mistaken notion.

Let's get back to what the experimental data requires, not what anyone prefers.

This grossly misstates relativity. Again, there are (at least) TWO frames. In one frame, light is observed to take a straight path. In another, it is curved. That's pretty much what we mean by "relativity". The observations do not match.

Wrong, it is perfectly correct for applications which may sit in a gravity well, but never cross the gradient. That includes, for example, the interferometer sitting sit on a bench while someone is looking for your ether. And not finding it.

No, there is no error at all in the applications I cited above, and in most other cases they are smaller in magnitude than the instrumentation can measure. That says nothing about the truth of SR. It says the experimenter was not trying to measure anything crossing a gravitational gradient.

You have reached that conclusion by making assumptions that have nothing to do with actual science. Go take a basic class that does some lab measurements and you will be cured of your error as soon as you are on the chopping block (pass or fail) for reporting your measurements accurately.

Post the cite and prove what you just said.

Check that; prove me wrong.

Yes the abstract says nothing useful or meaningful. No, the "journal" is not mainstream. I see no text so I have no idea what you are talking about. The journal in question may be OK but show us how often it has been cited. How many times has your paper been cited? And where is your paper? Looks like a scam to me.

Not unless you provide a link. As I said, you gave no link to the article itself, there is a link on the page you gave us, but it shows a \$40 fee to get the paper. Follow your own links, bro, and check your work before posting. Or correct me if I goofed. But I wasted too much time already trying to prove that any such paper even exists.

No, I like paddo, but he rises through the screed by actually learning this stuff as an amateur. I myself went through formal training and a career. So you can get off the gas; I see no paper and for some reason your seem determined not to provide it. The dumb little abstract is useless. We need a proposition with all the rationale fleshed out. We need cites (I think I saw 50 references, but no text to link them to).

Have it your way. But why appear here just to argue nonsense? The topic is a great one, and so far we haven't even touched on it.

Messages:
21,703
You mean as opposed to be submissive to any of the Tom's, Dick's and Harry's that forums such as this are open too, and the myriad of alternative nuts, anti science fools, fanatical religious ratbags, not to mention the mavericks such as yourself.

7. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
Units on the left are energy (joules) and on the right it's mass and velocity squared. Nothing at all like you cast it.

OK

Ok but you are oversimplifying (see below).

Yeah, but c is not in that measurement. Time is. And time is not invariant; it's relative. Hence, the standards expert will understand that she has to calibrate; she needs to know at what altitude 1 second was defined in your oversimplification above. In retrospect she will either use a time standard, calibrated for altitude, or self-calibrating, or she simply won't care, since the error will probably be beyond her practical needs.

That would be before Galileo (or earlier) or else before Fitzeau (1850s) if you are talking about early references to special relativity.

Of course, that makes no difference since the measurement requires measuring time, not c, as I stated above.

This may be the most accurate thing you have posted so far.

Get off the gas. Besides, the point is moot as explained above.

A veritable plethora. But irrelevant.

Did you calibrate for your altitude? Oh yeah, the cable you use for cal stretches and contracts at different altitudes, so it all works out fine, doesn't it. Not sure about the rest of the terminations in the cal kit though . . .

Man, I'm really not sure how that works with crystal standards, though . . . seems like it should be OK, but I think more test data is needed here just to be sure . . .

Ha ha ha. You really are full of it.

Yeah, I understand the scam now, so I won't be feeding the trolls anymore. It's pretty obvious neither of you want to discuss the topic. My bad. (Ignore)

8. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546

Thats precisely what I said that direction aspect is hidden in the transformation, you are putting it differently, may be more precisely.

And I fail to understand why you are persisting on this direction issue. Pl see the link below, it gives a generalized math for Lorentz Transformation with arbitrary direction

http://web.cs.iastate.edu/~prabhu/Lorentz/ejp7_2_004.pdf

[/QUOTE]

I was trying to find out the definition of "Time Travel", I got these two links. They do talk of association of 'time dilation' with time travel, which per say is different from the pupular perception. Wiki definition is more towards popular perception.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/timetrav/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

But lets simulate a different condition, without using travel as such. What is ageing or biological time, Is it same as the passage of time around us or it is something different (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_clock_(aging)).

Based on this let us create a drug induced (medical intervention) hybernation type situation or drug induced projeria. This condition can be inititated on one of the twins (keeping both of them here on the Earth). [If such medical advancement is not possible in human beings then Amoeba or any parasite or virus or even the sperm or egg twins can be taken]. So now the medically altered twin will follow a different rate on his biological clock. A Time Travel kind of situation is created. So, I cannot have a dispute with anyone associating "Time Travel' with Time Dilation, but to me it appears as twisting of language.

9. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
The paper citation is in standard arXiv form.

Yo can click the link of any arXiv paper as given and on the right hand top, a download link will appear as PDF, and the whole paper will appear...Its free.

10. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
This appeared quite interesting, as picked up from your dialog with Danshawen. How the variablity of time, in different frames (inertial), will change the "standard of measurement of Length"? Light is expected to travel at 'c' meters in one second in all frames. Are we not settling this with "Length Contraction"?

Messages:
21,703
Suspended animation suspends aging, not time.
Time still passes and if taken to the nth degree, yes a person say in suspended animation for say 10 years, then awoken, has not aged biologically but he will be 10 years ahead of the time since he was put in the suspended state.
Time has passed for all except himself.
http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/medicaltimetravel.htm

http://www.21stcentech.com/cryogenics-suspended-animation-humans-travel-deep-space/

Again time dilation being a proven and accepted phenomenon, does lead to what can be called time travel particularly in extreme cases like travelling at very near "c"

12. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,836
The point of postulating an ether was that the velocity of light does not depend on the velocity of the source. Which is a well-known property of sound waves in condensed matter too.
??? The point being??? Of course, theoretical physicists can be empiricists, this is simply a particular philosophy of science. The subdivision between experimenters and theoreticians was not that strong at that time than today. None of this has any connection to the fact that Maxwell has developed ether theory.
There was no need for an ether wind, except in your phantasy. And when the ether wind was disproved, some old ether theories were dead, and a better one was found, the Lorentz ether.
Recommendation: If you are not sure, don't say "wrong". The Maxwell equations for electromagnetism, which are used even today, are Lorentz invariant. That this Lorentz invariance has been found only later does not change the fact that these equations were Lorentz invariant already before this was observed.
As I have said, feel free to ignore my posts. It may be not that stupid for laymen to simply rely on mainstream textbooks and to ignore any alternatives without even taking a look at them.
"People interested in this subject" of course includes scientists too. The mainstream scientists reject the Lorentz ether, for metaphysical reasons, but usually they know that the Lorentz ether is not falsified by MMX and makes the same predictions as SR.
If there is something completely wrong, present the arguments why. It is one thing to say that you don't know the Lorentz ether, and, given that the mainstream does not support this theory, will ignore it (a reasonable reaction for a layman), and a different one to claim that it is wrong.
The clocks do not have to care about any frames, they move following their trajectory, and you can use whatever frame (system of coordinates) you like to describe all clocks all the time. The formula for the time shown by a clock is $\tau = \int \sqrt{1-v(t)^2/c^2} dt$ in any inertial system of coordinates, for a clock moving with velocity v(t). And this $\tau$ is named proper time. If there is gravity, the formula for proper time becomes different and depends on the gravitational field too,
$\tau = \int \sqrt{g_{mn}(x,t) dx^m(t) dx^n(t)}$. My statement was correct for SR as well as GR. If two clocks follow different trajectories, their showings will be identical only by numerical accidents, or because relativistic effects are simply too small so that $\tau = \int dt$ is a sufficiently accurate approximation for above clocks.
I make no complaints, and I have never said that Einstein's 1905 paper was not fine.
Feel free to talk about videos. I'm interested in science.
The experimental data require no nontrivial topologies and a single global harmonic system of coordinates is sufficient to describe what we have observed up to now. So you can use the standard GR math as well as GR in harmonic coordinates as preferred. The data do not make any requirements.
The word "frame" can, in principle, used to describe also some curved systems of coordinates, but what is usually meant with "frame" in SR talk is an inertial frame. And in any inertial frame light (in vacuum) follows straight lines, always. And different systems of coordinates can be used in Newtonian mechanics too, and the formulas in such curved coordinates will look quite different in NT too. This is simply a standard mathematical technique, which has nothing to do with physics.
It may be approximately correct, but is not perfectly correct. Of course, the error will be in most cases smaller in magnitude than observable. But there will be an error. Every stone lying around creates its own gravitational field, which everybody will ignore, but it will distort the results and destroy your perfection.
If you think something is wrong, don't use paddoboy-like accusations, but present arguments.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7812 and http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.7812v1.pdf
I have not claimed it has been cited, and do not expect it will be cited during the next years. One first has to wait until the failure of string theory becomes so obvious that it will be given up, and people really start to search for alternatives.
The link you have found was, of course, to a paywall version. This is standard in modern physics. The journals scam by requiring phantasy prices for the articles, but there is the preprint server arxiv.org, and the physicists put their preprints on this server for free. And if it is published, one puts the text which is published as the actual version to the preprint server and adds a reference. This is how physicists handle the copyright scam of the journals. The published version and the version on the preprint server are usually slightly different in the presentation, but the text is usually the same.
If he would refuse from his polemics, he would be a very valuable contributor.

Messages:
21,703
You accuse people of ad homs, you deride all arguments against your weird take on science, but see your own abuse as warranted and OK.
You along with the god and Farsight, are the epitome of hypocrisy.

Irrespective of the final of string theory either way, your paper will be lost along with many others that have tried to rewrite or modifiy GR, never to rise again.
That is near certain.

If you were'nt so self obsessed and self indulgent, with your views on science and politics, you just may see how that applies to yourself when cornered.

As I have told you many times, if you had anything of substance, you would not be here......and what do I get back? excuses, conspiracies etc etc, the same argumentive style of most from the fringes.

14. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,949
Not as full of it as someone who has not even a command of simple algebra.

The equation you don't recognize is E=mc^2, possibly the most recognized formula in science. Matter IS bound energy, and all I have done is to rename m and divide both sides of the equation by it. You don't need to apply the rules of dimensional analysis to the problem, because all I have done is interpret it; nothing changed.

There really is no point in any further discussion of science with you, because you don't seem to be a candidate for someone who would benefit from such discussion, even in small measure. It is pointless. I bid you good day, and good luck.

15. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,836
The problem with ad hominem arguments is not that one should not make them (the things which one should not make are named defamations and lies), but that they have low value as arguments. That means, if I name an argument ad hominem, I say that your argument is a quite weak one.

Ad hominem simply means that what is questioned is the person who makes a particular claim, instead of the content of the claim itself. So, ad hominem is often used to hide the fact that one has no arguments about the content. This is what is your problem: you like to use arguments that I'm not an acknowledged authority, but you have no arguments about the content. That's why I reject your arguments as ad hominem, and point to your weak point, that you are unable to argue about the content.

Does it follow that ad hominem is always wrong or even unethical? No. Sometimes I use them too. For example in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/je...f-the-labour-party.152629/page-3#post-3330516 I write "Again a "Russian researcher" with the name Sultan Chamchijew, an activist of the movement for the revival of Ingushian statehood, thus, not a Russian researcher but an Ingush politician.". This is, clearly, an ad hominem argument against this guy. It does not prove that what this guy has said is wrong. It is only arguing against the way this guy has been presented - as a "Russian researcher", which obviously suggest some scientific merits as a "researcher" and that he is - as a Russian - on the Ossetian side of the conflict. But, of course, even an Ingushetian political activist can sometimes tell the truth. So, the argument is not a very powerful one.

The reason for using this weak argument was that it was easy to get, by reading in the linked text the non-Russian name of the "Russian researcher", and identifying him as an Ingushetian political activist by a simple google search. Proving that the content of his claims are false would require, instead, a lot of hard work, and I have more interesting things to do.

In fact, the situation is quite similar to your situation - what you can easily find out, and what I don't even deny, is that my theory is not mainstream. What you are unable to show, as a layman, is if it is wrong or not. So, it is quite natural for you to use ad hominem against my ether theories.

What is the difference? That you repeat your ad hominems endlessly, as if they would be strong, decisive arguments, and that you try to create the impression that they are strong, for example:
This is something I would not do. Of course, your endless repetition of ad hominems causes me to repeat myself and such repetition can create the impression that I somehow think that ad hominem is something horrible and evil. It is not, it is simply a weak argument. (I have a problem also with your otherwise quite aggressive style, but this is another question.)

By the way, my paper has survived the first ten years nicely. Note the date of putting it to arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 Wed, 8 May 2002. Compare with the date of publication in the journal: Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012). Add as an additional information that this publication was invited by the editor of this journal, quite unexpected for me. At that time, I have not even tried to publish it, because the most important formulas were already published in an appendix of the Foundations of Physics article.

16. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,836
The problem with ad hominem arguments is not that one should not make them (the things which one should not make are named defamations and lies), but that they have low value as arguments. That means, if I name an argument ad hominem, I say that your argument is a quite weak one.

Ad hominem simply means that what is questioned is the person who makes a particular claim, instead of the content of the claim itself. So, ad hominem is often used to hide the fact that one has no arguments about the content. This is what is your problem: you like to use arguments that I'm not an acknowledged authority, but you have no arguments about the content. That's why I reject your arguments as ad hominem, and point to your weak point, that you are unable to argue about the content.

Does it follow that ad hominem is always wrong or even unethical? No. Sometimes I use them too. For example in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/je...f-the-labour-party.152629/page-3#post-3330516 I write "Again a "Russian researcher" with the name Sultan Chamchijew, an activist of the movement for the revival of Ingushian statehood, thus, not a Russian researcher but an Ingush politician.". This is, clearly, an ad hominem argument against this guy. It does not prove that what this guy has said is wrong. It is only arguing against the way this guy has been presented - as a "Russian researcher", which obviously suggest some scientific merits as a "researcher" and that he is - as a Russian - on the Ossetian side of the conflict. But, of course, even an Ingushetian political activist can sometimes tell the truth. So, the argument is not a very powerful one.

The reason for using this weak argument was that it was easy to get, by reading in the linked text the non-Russian name of the "Russian researcher", and identifying him as an Ingushetian political activist by a simple google search. Proving that the content of his claims are false would require, instead, a lot of hard work, and I have more interesting things to do.

In fact, the situation is quite similar to your situation - what you can easily find out, and what I don't even deny, is that my theory is not mainstream. What you are unable to show, as a layman, is if it is wrong or not. So, it is quite natural for you to use ad hominem against my ether theories.

What is the difference? That you repeat your ad hominems endlessly, as if they would be strong, decisive arguments, and that you try to create the impression that they are strong, for example:
This is something I would not do. Of course, your endless repetition of ad hominems causes me to repeat myself and such repetition can create the impression that I somehow think that ad hominem is something horrible and evil. It is not, it is simply a weak argument. (I have a problem also with your otherwise quite aggressive style, but this is another question.)

By the way, my paper has survived the first ten years nicely. Note the date of putting it to arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 Wed, 8 May 2002. Compare with the date of publication in the journal: Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012). Add as an additional information that this publication was invited by the editor of this journal, quite unexpected for me. At that time, I have not even tried to publish it, because the most important formulas were already published in an appendix of the Foundations of Physics article.

17. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
No, aether is an ancient concept. Further, the superstition was disproved for the reason you state above. The constancy of c forbids any medium, aether or otherwise.

Space is not "uncondensed" matter. Electromagnetic waves traverse free space at c regardless of reference frame which has nothing to do with this. Further, the radiation of acoustic waves in solids, liquids, gases or plasmas exactly follows the radiation of electromagnetic waves in media or free space, at a speed calculated by taking the geometric mean of two intrinsic properties: 1/ε and 1/μ. These have specific meaning in electromagnetics, and in acoustics, there are equivalent properties involved (although the standard symbols for them are different). The analogous rule about reference frames stands in acoustics: thus the ambulance driver hears (say) a steady pitch from the siren, whereas people on the street hear the "redshift" and "blushift". Why? Because the speed of sound is constant in air for both frames.

No. All of scientific theory is offered in explanation of empirical results. You are therefore wrong in differentiating "empiricists" and "theoreticians". If a scientist happens to be spending all of her time in a lab while her coworker is spending all of his time reading and writing, it makes no difference. They are working on the same kind of problems: data says this. What does it mean?

No, Maxwell did not develop any aether theory. He worried that the old superstition he had been steeped in was shaken by the empirical results. And he had no idea how to explain radiation other than it had been superstitiously believed, as transport via luminiferous aether. As a result he once speculated about the current superstition of his day (perfectly elastic zero density fluid) and updated it with one requirement: filled with magnetic vortices (by that time the word "molecule" was in vogue, the way "quantum" gets bandied about today). But Maxwell's biggest contribution to science is comparable to Einstein's: he integrated the findings of his peers ("standing on the shoulders of giants") the way Einstein did.

To invoke Maxwell as an "authority" for the existence of aether (which this smacks of) is to drag science back into the Medieval period, to reinstate alchemy, and to glorify the inquisition that put Galileo under house arrest.

You are an imposter. The search was for "the luminiferous aether" which would have been "blowing like a wind" (indeed there is a solar wind) as the Earth moved.
Not even close. Lorentz took on the formidable task that Einstein would later complete (integrating the results of others) and in the process he inserted electromagnetics into the aether superstition a little better than Maxwell had done. Other than that, his need for doing this is immaterial and it has no value whatsoever in establishing the thing you are trying to insinuate into this thread.

Busted: the word is "electromagnetics". Hence I said "imposter".

oh . . . my . . . gawd.

Ha ha ha. I'd love to see you explain what that means to you.

LOL

Utter nonsense. Imposter.

Yes I though I put you on ignore already. Roger that.

Ah I see. The way numbskulls rely on superstitions they soaked up from medieval lore associated with the Bible. Roger that too.

Of course standard textbooks (used in accredited colleges and universities of Math & the sciences) rule, whereas the other stuff drools. And already you are slobbering on the keyboard.

No, the stupid crap that pretends to be science, but is actually parading as crypto-Creationism (thanks rpenner for reviving that term) just plain sucks. Pushing the ignore button any minute now.

Which excludes you, thankfully.

Stupid is as stupid does. Other than the Creationists trying to insinuate God into threads like this no one else gives a damn about aether. Interest and/or belief in the superstition became moot after the luminiferous wind was disproven. The other nails in the coffin were the "theory of (almost) everything" that became known as Maxwell's equations, and then the fatal blow was relativity.

Ok. You are propounding junk science in a science thread. QED.

I know it well. As I said, it is dead. (And will not rise on the third day no matter how hard you try).

Wrong. "Mainstream" does not mean "all educated people". Classic screed, imposter.

As I said, no one gives a damn about aether except the worse, stupidest, most dishonest Creationists, and their political cohorts.

More nonsense.

LOL. I'd love to see the schematic diagram for this clock.

And that's to differentiate it with clocks moving at v(x), or some other way they can move? Nice little scam you are running here. Obviously you are in denial of modern physics. You need to take that crap to the lower threads. Begone Satan!

Ah yes. The name game.

But since you are an imposter, you don't understand what that means. You don't understand that there is no change in frame unless something (like a clock or an observer watching that clock) crosses a gradient. Go back to school, stop pretending to be a published expert in physics, and may you spend a highly dilated time in Purgatory for all your violations of the Eighth Commandment. (I think the real lawmaker that refers to, Hammurabi, had a law number 723 or something which pulled out all your hair plus at least one canine for posing as a person with an education, esp. if it went to the benefit of Big Oil (which of course was what Mesopotamia was all about . . . I mean it was all about the oil . . . )

Liar.

I am certain we have met before. The Hydra has so many heads.

18. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
Good thing the ambulance drivers all have degrees in the physical and applied sciences. Oh look: this guy has a "do not resuscitate" order on him!

*yawn*

Except for everything posted above, which is in denial of relativity and the death of aether, among other things.

Correction. You are interested in quashing modern physics, villifying the many great minds that are throwing your superstitions back in your face, and trying to recruit gullible followers. Scammer.

Pure meaningless word salad, utterly bogus tripe. Imposter.

Or: you can go back to school, study, pass the exams, do the labs, projects and research papers, and graduate with a little bit of actual working knowledge about this subject. Or: stay as you are, and maybe the Koch Brothers will give you a promotion.

*yawn* Get thee to a nunnery (even they have adult education programs.)

Boys, give this man a cigar.

Oh no you don't. I want my Newtonian physics in harmonic coordinates.

Of course not! Everyone knows that F = ma is just mainstream screed! It should be F(t) = ma(t) for one thing! And for another, it has nothing whatsoever to do with physics! After all it's math!

Hammurabi calls up St Peter on his wireless sundial and imposes another 10 Taus of dilated purgatory time, for "lies the cheat the liars of the ability to coin worse lies".

That's right folks, you heard that one right here, at SciForums!

I think you are left to say that because everyone else must already have you on ignore. Ok paddo, it's up to you now, I am pulling the plug on this one. Bwaa ha ha yek yek yek.

Oh Ok now I see the paper. Not sure what went wrong. Probly my parental controls engaged.

Whoa dude that paper reeks. I would love to investigate further, as I can't believe any bona fide journal would publish it. Of course by now, I am probably infected with a Trojan horse of some kind.

Ok well maybe you will get 3 Taus off for this admission. But sorry, you just admitted to being a fraud.

Ah so now the venom for Brian Greene finally is exposed. He is obstructing your place in science as genius! Bwaa ha ha ha ha.

Now I am pretty sure the pirates own my boot loader. Because I would swear I followed the URL you originally posted. Damn!

. . . said the scammer who never took any physics.

OMGawd! Not a conspiracy theorist too!

And the scammers too QED.

Straight up prison talk.

If all the superstitious cranks would confine themselves to the lower thread, paddo would not be wielding the rolling pin. Begone Satan!

*click*

19. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,836
Completely wrong, and without any justification. Sound waves in a medium have velocities which do not depend on velocities of the cause. This is a characteristic property which sound waves share with light, and this property was the main argument in favour of an ether. Ancients concepts of the Old Greeks may have given the name, but are otherwise irrelevant.
You have obviously no idea of the meaning of the word "empiricism". This is a particular philosophy of science, a wrong one, which today nobody takes seriously because modern Popperian philosophy of science is much better.

I would recommend you to read Popper.
Your rewriting of what Maxwell has done, together with this accusation, was funny, it remembers me how the German communist propagandist Karl Eduard von Schnitzler has "disproved" Western media by translating what they have said into communist jargon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
This "LOL" in response to the elementary standard formula $\tau=\int \sqrt{1-v(t)^2/c^2}dt$ for proper time simply shows that you have not even a basic education in SR.

This, combined with the uncivilized behaviour, makes a continuation of the conversation meaningless.

Sorry, paddoboy, I have to ask you for excuse because I have considered him to be more civilized than you. Forgive me.

20. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
It's sad. It seems that it's common amoungst humans to prefer 'being right' over intellectual honesty. Logic says that those that behave that way will have a very serious learning disability. Those two are following that path. Pretty much like every other crank.

Messages:
21,703
As are yours.
Ignoring your usual lengthy rather evangelistic rants.......

Hypocrisy is most certainly one of your strong points.

Survived????

You mean linger, as do most records in such situations.
When your paper is cited in high places, or as any possible extension or solution to cosmological problems, give us a call.

Your condescending sarcasm bears the mark of someone with no real credibility, or as we say in my country..."You are like the cocky on the biscuit tin: You ain't in it".

22. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
No, you are completely wrong. And disingenuous, you fraud. The constancy of c in all reference frames forbids any medium whatsoever, since the velocity of the medium itself would necessarily add to the velocity of the observed wave. Instead, the wavelength is altered (spacetime is observed altered). This was why experiments like Fitzeau and Michelson-Moreley completely thrashed the superstition you are trying to resurrect here. Take this to the lower threads. There are numerous places for you to spout your ether mumbo jumbo.

You lose, scammer. There is no science in your junk paper. I seriously doubt that any credentialed reviewer has accepted it as legitimate.

Oh geez I just said that, except without the poorly framed speech. And since it is a property of wave transport (radiation) it absolutely nothing to do with the need for a medium. (Unless we start calling the vacuum a medium which is better and correct but tends to confuse the name for parameters associated with various materials [media], esp permittivity and permeability, and their various analogs in acoustics).

Oh, and one more thing: yes, you can measure the vclocity of the moving medium, such that it adds to the velocity of light. It's just that, c itself slows naturally in the media to begin with, so you have to factor this all in. Further, the scattering at the far end of the medium makes this a little messy (as in when it goes back to the velocity of light in air [or vacuum] ).

Again, for clarity, before you go off the chain again: the velocity of electromagnetic waves, in free space, is invariant in all frames.

No it was not. Go learn Huygens' principle. He was not referring to anything he had in mind about acoustics. The more common idea was to reference waves in water, as on the shore. That's another reason the "aether" was sometimes called "a sea".

You are correct that aether is irrelevant (again, take it to the lower threads). But the fact that the word "aether" in ancient cosmology was the "stuff" that filled the sky between the earth and the moon is entirely relevant to correcting your belief that it was first used in connection with (whatever you said, something no longer important).

You obviously have no idea of the meaning of "take it to the lower threads".

Well when you actually pass a science course (preferably dealing in electromagnetics / optics) then come back and we'll give you a chance to retract your crank anti-science rant.

I haven't written much about Maxwell. You tried to resurrect the tired argument that he is an authority upon which we should believe an aether exists. Talk about funny. And since you are a scammer, I am going to have to assume you are not even German (or Germanic or whatever this little charade is supposed to mean).

Don't rely on wiki - take the course, and come back and confess your sins.

Ha ha ha. You are trying to cast proper time as the result of some relativistic observation. Further, you meant to write "elapsed time, in the inertial frame, as it relates to time in another frame" or something like that. It's a differential (Δτ) which makes this so silly. Compounding this is your earlier attack on math.

That's why I am clicking you off. Bye. Take your crude barbarous abuses of math and science to the lower threads, where food fights are the mainstay.

Well don't let decorum prevent you from admitting that you have no other purpose here than to inject Creationism into the thread.

This time I will get it done for sure: *click*
C ya wouldn't wanna B ya

23. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
You wrote very prolifically on this thread and on the other thread which was about mersini paper. You declared both Danshawen and Schemelzer what not, and condescendingly declared Paddoboy as amateur and you love him for his efforts, putting yourslef at higher pedestal .....Lets see where you are in the argument.

1. You wrongly persisted that direction plays no role in Time Dilation calculations, you refuted my +v and -v example with respect to third frame, you did not correct your position even after I gave you the link which details the transformation with arbitrary direction motion.

2. You raised doubts over the 'standard of length' as measured bringing in time dilation due to motion or due to Gravity. This means that you failed to appreciate the length contraction in case of relative motion time dilation, and you failed to appreciate the physics behind non-inertial frames.

3. You talk of ephemeral BH.....wow, you failed to recognise once inside EH, then the only way for BH to vanish is, Hawking Radiation which has time frame as high as you can imagine.

4. You came to know only yesterday, that BHs have no direct evidence? Its no sin, but where does it put you with such lengthy arguments on the subject.

5. On Laura paper, you talk of rebounce due to Nuclear Strong Force, while she talks of nothing like that. Her rebounce factor is due to Backreacting negative Hawking radiation.

You declared few as cranks but shared no knowledge.