This is junk.
I said I was a scientist/physicist, because I am.
Because no credentials are required for this to be true, there was no intention to deceive anyone.
I said I was not a professional physicist because I am not paid.
And yet I still treat it as my profession, not a hobby and I hope to get paid from my efforts some day.
All these things are true, and I have not claimed to be a professional physicist in the sense that it would normally be taken to mean.
So what is there to argue about?
Oh, you can’t find a flaw in my arguments against SR, so you are engaging in semantics…
You could have just said that you were incapable of a valuable thought against anything I have said and left it at that.
mythoughts.
You are again engaging in deception.
Not having the skill to refrain from finally joining the teeming masses telling you are wrong presently is not the same as refusing.
None have shown where you are right except one case. Wait… scratch that.
You can find no way to support your case after people repeatedly cite scientific examples refuting your thought experiments and explaining basic (I presume) scientific principles to you in the nicest way possible. Similarly, you can find no evidence of me making manipulative personal attacks.
If I am wrong, post an example, you can’t, you won’t, so shut up.
APPARENT velocities greater than the speed of light (superluminal motion) have been inferred for radio-emitting components in a number of distant quasars and active galactic nuclei1. These components move away from the central sources (generally thought to be super-massive black holes) at rates that seem to imply velocities greater than c. The accepted explanation is that clouds of plasma are ejected in opposite directions from the central source at speeds close to (but less than) that of light, and that relativistic effects lead to the apparent superluminal motion2. But the extreme distance of the objects observed so far introduces many uncertainties into this interpretation.
One source I read but can’t find right now mentioned that jets up to 8 times the speed of light have been found.
While there are attempts to explain this within SR, there seems to be problems with doing so as the bold portion suggests.
Oh, someone failing to successfully argue against me?
I have made many today…
One was the argument that if the Sagnac effect was scaled up until the arc became imperceptible from a straight like (without zooming out), they argued that the difference in the velocity would become imperceptible.
I noted that this is entirely incorrect as the Sagnac effect is not decreased by a larger loop and hence almost straight line and that the magnitude of the effect is related to the linear speed of the rotating loop only.
And that Sagnac loops are made large to make it easier to spot a big difference with a given RPM.
There is no truth to the assertion (who made it I forget, but it was today).
Another example from today is where Pasta and Trinopus argued that mass does not increase as velocities near C.
I pointed out, and actually so did Trinopus that the resistance to further acceleration does increase.
And so if it is called mass or not it still offers far more resistance to further acceleration which makes my gyro idea valid, and this means that the increasing resistance to acceleration could be used as I claim to bust newtons laws of motion, and if they are busted so necessarily is the conservation of energy.
So I have done what you would not do, because you could not do it.
Show me where I have been proven wrong except for one admittedly failed thought experiment out of 10 to 15 thought experiments.
I did it, I bet you can’t
I already did the computation pages ago. When switching between inertial frames, the new time and space coordinates are linear functions of the old ones, not just a constant multiplicative factor times the old ones. When you do the math— and this is 8th-grade math at most— you get the result that objects travelling at c in one inertial frame travel at c in every other inertial frame. This should not be surprising, since this is exactly what relativity is: It’s the framework put in place to explain the experimental fact that the speed of light is constant in every inertial frame.
Simply repeating that none of us can reply to your rambling thought-experiments, or that SR can’t explain some experiment you poorly understand, doesn’t make it so. I’m genuinely sorry that you’re such an idiot, since you obviously care about physics in general and relativity in particular. Unfortunately, you will never learn anything, because you’re incapable of learning or even recognizing that you need to learn. You’re going to forever remain an angry, frustrated, impotent little pretend-physicist constantly whining about how no one treats you seriously, and it’s your own fault.
Beyond that - the onus is not on us to ‘prove’ you wrong - thats one of your many, many logical fallacies you keep repeating - it is entirely up to you, as the one bringing the case, to prove your experiments, etc.
mythoughts:
“I am a physicist.
I am not a credentialed or professional one.
I could be called an amateur physicist, but I am actually doing it as my profession while not being paid.
So maybe I am a professional that is unpaid?
But if I hope to make money from it eventually, maybe professional would be fair.”
So you hope to be treated as a professional, or at least, a talented amateur, and you can’t do the math.
Delusional.
Also, you are a liar, see *“I am a physicist” *above. If you can’t do the math, you are not a physicist, and you are not ‘doing it’, you are doing squat. My daughter is more of physicist than you are, literally, and she’s a Jr in HS.
You do know we can go back and read what you have written, right? And the first time you claimed to be a physicist, there were NO disclaimers. None, nada.
Delusional liar.
It would be interesting to put her on this thread and ask her to analyze the idiot’s writings. She’s taking IB Physics this semester, and AP Calc, which is a damned sight further than i ever went with Math or Science.
Itself, math can explain a quantity of something.
But Lorentz transformations are not designed, and never were designed to make the one way speed of light measurable to C.
They were only designed and can only be used to make the total trip time of a reflected or other 2 way trip equal C which each half of the trip being very far from C.
As you know I am unable to wade into the calculations to explain why they do not work, but logic can do just fine.
There is no mechanism to slow down a photon that should be seen to be moving too fast.
If you can’t explain it in words or concepts it is not very promising.
I could explain it in words, but only if the I include length contraction of the photon frame.
But then it would not work for light in the other direction, that only works by shrinking the spaceships frame and not the lights frame.
This then would be a variation of my superior SR theory, where essentially length expansion and length contraction takes place simultaneously to make it work in both directions, all from the same frame.
Maybe this is the kind of nonsense the math describes, which would have it work mathematically only because you fail to notice it has gone a long way from possibly describing a coherent and possible reality.
Math can only give us quantities, it can’t make new transformations exist to do something that there is no mechanism for in the first place.
I’m not sure where you live, but I’d like to hope that your city / state / country has laws against such child abuse.
(Actually, that might also apply to AP Calc. Once I found out in the first semester of my Senior year of high school, that I scored “early admission” to college, I dropped AP Calc and went into Speech. Not completely due to the material covered, mind you. The teacher was one of the most malicious instructors I’ve ever met, but that’s a post for another time…)
As I see it, the thread has two points of real value.
I’m learning stuff! I really am! Several of the others who have posted here know a lot more than I do, and in their explanations, I’ve gained a fair bit of knowledge.
It’s a kind of object lesson for other small minds who might be reading this and think that they know stuff they don’t really. Like the jackass who had disproven Cantor’s famous “diagonal” proof. Or the next dipshit creationist. This forum is not filled with weaklings, pushovers, yes-men, and sheeple, and faking it won’t work here. It lets them know how incredibly stupid they look when they try it.
I’m too new here to say “Hi, Opal,” but I can add that, at least at first, it was also a challenge to me to try to write specific, detailed, scientific rebuttals. It made me stretch my writing muscles. I think I mostly managed to keep up.
But, now, alas, I think it’s time for us to ignore the little twerp, and move on to Star Trek Transporter debates, or airplanes on treadmills, or whether Orcs have souls, or if the Civil War was really about slavery. Y’know, the real meat and potatoes of the SDMB!
When you see so many people refuting / debunking your claims (both on the board and established , what is it that goes through your head? I’m being completely sincere when I ask this.
Nobody has supported your claim / belief, so I just wonder if you think we are all “sheeple” and you’re the one who is trying to show us the light, or if you are trolling…
I freely admit that I know little of the subject matter, and I’ve found a lot of the posts to be enlightening, but when everyone is telling you that “x” is a duck, and you’re claiming that it’s an elephant, I just have to ask about the train of thought.
Do you think of the others as being malicious? Misguided? I just wonder about your opinion of the other contributors in this thread. (Not of me, b/c you’ve made that perfectly clear. I’m speaking of the ones who’ve provided scientific data / proof)
ETA: I wrote this before I saw Trinopus’s post, so seeing “sheeple” twice in a row made me smile. Also, yeah, time to take Old Yeller out behind the shed.
Some basic knowledge and respect for scientific principles are needed however, and since you lack these you are neither a scientist or a physicist. You’re mostly deceiving yourself however. No one who has read this thread would have been deceived for a second.
Yeah, and people in Hell want ice water, but that’s not going to happen either.
Saying that physics is your “profession” even though you don’t know much about it and are not paid is certainly itself rather convoluted semantics.
[QUOTE]
, and you can’t do the math. [/fQUOTE]
Correct, math is a separate but helpful discipline that aids the physicist greatly.
But not actually required to do very useful work in physics.
It is of course not correct to say I have no ability to do math, but my level is so slight I only use it sometimes. I am not going to look at an equation and just go ‘ah ha!’
That is a truth, so hence not a lie.
Do you know what a lie is?
If I used it in a deceptive way I could have been guilty of misleading even though it is true, but I did not use it to present myself any anything other than what I am, a physicist on the fringe (in disagreement with the establishment) without credentials or math skills.
And you have to go sink to personal attacks because you are unable to fault ANY of my logic with only one exception which kimble and naita and I found was at fault.
Obviously physicist means qualifications to you.
To me it means a way of being, a life’s purpose, a thing someone is passionate about and does with their life.
If you only value qualifications you might read that with a different meaning than I.
I did not even consider it needful to mention that I have no qualifications, I had mentioned similar things many times and probably before hand.
So even if in the message when I first said I was a physicist I did not give any disclaimers, it was simply that I considered it was a given.
Consider this.
I am the only one here who know anything about me.
I am the only one that knows what qualifications I do or do not have.
If I wanted to deceive you with false qualifications, or even real but ones from diploma mills I would have done so.
Pretending that anyone mistook me for a credentialed physicist would be dishonesty on your part.
