• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
All will measure the "same" speed of light based on local rulers, but that speed and these rulers are not comparable the same.
Click to expand...

Once again it is the speed of light that defines distance for a given period of time. As distances they are comparable which is why we can say the different observers don't report distances "the same". Why do you insist upon pretending these assertions haven't been addressed several times before?
 
Bjarne said:
No it demonstrable missing logic and missing ability to stand up and fight for what you believe in.
Click to expand...

No one need "to stand up and fight for" your "missing logic" or "what you believe in". Not even you. However, if you actually want to "fight for what you believe in" then you actually have to work at it. You have much work to do
 
Bjarne said:
Not necessarily
C could be infinitely far away and at rest. Such a concept is already used in theoretical science.
Click to expand...

Yes, necessarily. It doesn't matter what you make the third frame it is still a third frame and "theoretical science" uses "Such a concept" as just another frame of reference.

Bjarne said:
Just use the the skyscraper experiment, then you will see there are no more logical significant implications to worry about, C is now your own logical sense
Click to expand...

C is just another frame of reference with all the "logical significant implications" as any other frame of reference.
 
Bjarne said:
You don't understand that speed is relative different, rulers too.
Click to expand...

You don't understand that claiming "that speed is relative" and that


Bjarne said:
All will measure the "same" speed of light based on local rulers, but that speed and these rulers are not comparable the same.
Click to expand...

Is just you disagreeing with yourself. Do please get back to us when you can at least agree with just yourself. Which might be when you don't feel the need to put the word same in quotations to claim things are the "same" but not the same.


ETA: You should probably note that just putting the word same in quotations or including the word comparable doesn't magically alleviate the direct contradiction in your assertion. They instead just signify that at least on some level you do recognize that direct contradiction and simply want to pretend it wasn't so. The easiest way not to contradict yourself is simply not to insist on having to contradict yourself. This can be difficult as we can hold simultaneous contradictory opinions. However, it is not logically consistent and simple pretense won't replace that missing consistency.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne, what will the data for 'the experiment' on the ISS which you think will support your notions look like?
What will that data look like, Bjarne?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
You don't understand that speed is relative different, rulers too.
Click to expand...

For the third time: This is not about what I understand, it is about what YOU claim.

The question of movement reference frame is central to ANY cosmology model, and there are only two options:

1) An absolute frame. This is the claim of most eather-based cosmologies.

2) A relative frame. This is the claim of GR/SR.

Which is the claim of YOUR cosmology model? If you can't answer this clearly, you don't HAVE a model.

Hans
 
Perpetual Student said:
Be careful! You will be among the most embarrassed when Bjarne gets his Nobel Prize.
Click to expand...


Not a chance, as I don't consider being wrong to be embarrassing. Being wrong and not being able to accept it, that can be embarrassing though. Being wrong, heck even being right, without making a sincere effort just to understand the basics of the concepts involved, well, one has already embarrassed themselves.


To quote John Adams

"May I blush whenever I suffer one hour to pass unimproved."
 
Daylightstar said:
Hilite by Daylightstar
With 'ruler', do you mean a specific distance?
Click to expand...

I assume he means different people in charge will have different measuring systems. Which will not affect anyone bright enough to computer in the relationships of each to the others.
 
MRC_Hans said:
For the third time: This is not about what I understand, it is about what YOU claim.

The question of movement reference frame is central to ANY cosmology model, and there are only two options:

1) An absolute frame. This is the claim of most eather-based cosmologies.

2) A relative frame. This is the claim of GR/SR.

Which is the claim of YOUR cosmology model? If you can't answer this clearly, you don't HAVE a model.

Hans
Click to expand...

You must distinguish between
  1. an absolute motion reference frame
  2. an absolute speed reference

The theory asserts only 1 - no. 2 must be a product of your imagination
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom