Relativity - Oh dear, here we go again!

[Ziggurat]

No, you provide a single source that supports your definition. Then we can see why I laugh at you.

We can duel all day about sources, which ones have more or less authority, and how closely any particular definition matches or doesn't match the definition I gave. I don't frankly see the point, especially with you. You frankly aren't worth the effort. But you can disprove my definition with counter-examples, if they exist. And if there are no counter-examples, how can my definition be wrong?

But I'll throw you a bone anyways.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven."

"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. "

 

[robinson]

And if there are no counter-examples, how can my definition be wrong?

Hey! I'm the comedian here, don't try and make us laugh.
























That was pretty funny however.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hey! I'm the comedian here, don't try and make us laugh.

And yet, you cannot answer why a definition which works for every case would still be wrong, nor have you come up with any exceptions. Your failures are plain to see, as is your ignorance. That may indeed be comic, but it is unimpressive.

Now go away, troll. I have no more time for your stupidity.

 

[Fredrik]

So you don't know what Law means, in regards to science. And you don't know why it is used. Interesting.

Nothing I said implies any of that. I know those things. I just don't know who started using those words the way they're used now.

No, what Law, theory and hypothesis mean are taught early on. Not in advanced courses.

You have already said that you know that there's more than one definition of these words, and yet you assume that what you are taught "early on" (I'm guessing high school or even earlier) are the appropriate definitions in an advanced context, and that people who don't make the same assumption are idiots. That's just dumb.

By the way, are you still denying the fact that the observed perihelion precession of Mercury disproves the inverse square law?

 

[ponderingturtle]

There’s nothing but a universal now in terms of the reality of existence

Wrong. SR says that it is not at all like that.

See link

 

[ponderingturtle]

I wasn't going to mention any names.

As before, I asked you to supply sources, rather than your own authority. Wiki certainly needs some citations. Every Physics textbook I have, as well as science websites uses terms that disagree with you, but agree with each other.

I linked to both Nobel prizes awarded for the discovery/creation of Laws, as well as a list of Laws that are used all the time. So when somebody tries to say there are no Laws of Physics, I tend to laugh about it.

Fine there are laws many of which are wrong. SUch as the inverse sqaure law. Now if we could only make reality fit the law...

 

[ponderingturtle]

You have provided no evidence at all. That is the funny part.

So you have decided to ignore my history of gravitional theory page I posted that specificialy said that the inverse square law is wrong(which I bolded highlighted and underlined).

Well if you ignore the evidence that is posted and lie about it like you are doing, you can then "win" every arguement.

 

[69dodge]

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

"Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them."

That's backwards.

 

[robinson]

Oh boy, here we go again.

 

[robinson]

So you have decided to ignore my history of gravitional[sic] theory page I posted that specificialy[sic] said that the inverse square law is wrong(which I bolded highlighted and underlined).

Well if you ignore the evidence that is posted and lie about it like you are doing, you can then "win" every arguement[sic].

I responded right away, and told you it was a good find. Nobody else offered a thing. What is it you want to know? Do you think the inverse square law no longer applies to Newton's Law of Gravity? Do you think NASA no longer uses Newton's formula? Are you under the impression that it doesn't work? What?

What is it you want to know?

 

[sol invictus]

I responded right away, and told you it was a good find. Nobody else offered a thing.

Really? What about the quotes from ALBERT EINSTEIN I posted several times which explained how the inverse square law doesn't hold?

I second what Zig said - please go away, troll.

 

[ynot]

What do you mean by a "non-physical thing" which interacts with physical things? You seem to have developed a nonsensical terminology all your own.

I guess when anyone tries to communicate in a foreign language they develop “nonsensical terminology” to some degree. I might have said matter and non-matter, but I’m not sure that’s correct for my purpose in your language either. In another thread I described light as being non-matter and was “told off” by another forum member (apparently a physicist). He categorically asserted that light definitely was matter and I was an idiot to think otherwise. In yet another thread a short time later however, he moderated his stance to “it depends how you define light” (never did get an apology).

By “non-physical things” I mean things that have no mass, no dimensions, not matter (in my definition), doesn’t occupy space, electromagnetic, energy, etc. Whatever makes light different from a brick. So what’s the correct terminology I’m looking for?

 

[ynot]

Wrong. SR says that it is not at all like that.

See link

I’m not talking about whether particular events occur at the same time, but that there’s never a time when just one event occurs in isolation. When a car crashes in America, something is occurring in Australia (and the rest of the universe) at exactly the same time (a universal “now“). Just because all events can’t be simultaneously observed, doesn’t mean they don’t occur.

 

[Ziggurat]

By “non-physical things” I mean things that have no mass,

Light is massless, so we're fine on that front.

no dimensions,

Oh, but light does have dimensions. It does take up space. Visible light is tiny, to be sure, but it's still much bigger than atoms.

So what’s the correct terminology I’m looking for?

Sounds like you should be talking about massive and massless, not physical and unphysical.

 

[Fredrik]

Nobody else offered a thing.

You were offered plenty, by several different people. For example, I (and Ziggurat) gave you links to pages that informed you that Mercury's orbit isn't what the inverse square law says it should be, but you just dismissed that because they used the words "Newton's theory" instead of "inverse square law", and because they didn't explicitly say that it had been disproved. (As if the fact that reality is different from its predictions isn't enough to disprove it).

Do you think the inverse square law no longer applies to Newton's Law of Gravity? Do you think NASA no longer uses Newton's formula? Are you under the impression that it doesn't work? What?

No one has suggested that it's useless. Newton's theory of gravity (which includes the inverse square law) is a good theory, and nothing will ever change that. You have however claimed a) that it's not a theory, b) that it's exactly true, and c) that we are stupid for not understanding that. You can't expect us to ignore that.

 

[BillyJoe]

It's funny how you always use that word "funny", robinson.
Come on, come clean, you are a comedian, right?
I mean, it's really sad if you are not.

Let me guess, you have "show avatars" set to "off", right?

I see the portrait of a man who has challenged his own sense of identity by placing an overlarge object in his nether regions and is now facing the prospect of public humiliation in having to have it surgically removed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I’m not talking about whether particular events occur at the same time, but that there’s never a time when just one event occurs in isolation. When a car crashes in America, something is occurring in Australia (and the rest of the universe) at exactly the same time (a universal “now“). Just because all events can’t be simultaneously observed, doesn’t mean they don’t occur.

But those events are only simultanious for a specific reference frame. Others with see the events in a different order.

 

[ynot]

But those events are only simultanious for a specific reference frame. Others with see the events in a different order.

There’s a difference between simultaneously observe and simultaneously occur. As any individual event occurs, other events are simultaneously occurring throughout the universe. I don‘t see how the limitations of observation effect the reality of occurrences. Events don’t need to be observed to occur.

 

[jsfisher]

There’s a difference between simultaneously observe and simultaneously occur. As any individual event occurs, other events are simultaneously occurring throughout the universe. I don‘t see how the limitations of observation effect the reality of occurrences. Events don’t need to be observed to occur.

But what does it mean for the events to occur simultaneously? If the two events are not at exactly the same place, with time being relative and all, it becomes meaningless to ask if events were simultaneous without also specifying the reference frame. In different frames the temporal ordering of the events could well be different (whether or not actually observed).

 

[ynot]

Oh, but light does have dimensions. It does take up space. Visible light is tiny, to be sure, but it's still much bigger than atoms.

It’s possible to measure a thing that has no mass, travels at c and is “destroyed” the instant it contacts matter?

How big are the dimensions of light?

Is the size and dimension of light actual or theoretical?