Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A proof for the Stationary Earth, Part 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by John Martin
    If c is invariant at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t' and v is the same value at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'

    then what has the same value at two points is invariant at those two points.

    As v is the same value at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'

    then v is invariant at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'
    The logic here doesn't get off the ground. Invarient... under what? Invariance is something you apply to transformations, its a quantity that is kept the same. The lorentz transformation takes you from one inertial reference frame to another. If something is the same after a lorentz transformation, then its an invarient.

    I assume by c you mean speed of light, and (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') is the same point after a lorentz transformation, with v being the velocity of something at that point.

    In that case, yes, c would be the same after a lorentz transformation, because its invariant. However v would only be the case if v is c, or if the lorentz transformation takes one to the same reference frame. In other words, it does nothing.

    If v is not c, then v' would be different quantity than v, as it would be changed by the lorentz transformation.

    As St. Thomas Aquinas would say, a mistake in the beginning is a mistake indeed.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
      I went to Mathway.com to solve the equation...
      Why? Couldn't you do it yourself?
      I couldn’t want to. Why could you?
      Can anyone translate this?
      What on earth makes you think you can overturn relativity and orbital mechanics if you can't do high school algebra?Then you probably did it wrong.
      How did I did it wrong, if I probably did it wrong, but I didn’t do it, so I couldn’t do it wrong? De do, de diddle, de did it de dum?
      Some-one capable of following a conversation would have noted that 'it' in the second sentence quoted refers to using mathway.com, which you did do, and not to doing the algebra, which you didn't do.

      Some-one not capable of following a conversation but aware of their own limitations might have asked for clarification.

      Only some-one incognisant of their own inadequacy would resort to self-embarrassing Manfred Mann impersonations.

      Maybe, or maybe not, as Sr theory is an upside-down, inside-out theory, that one is pressed to second guess what any variable means.
      Or you could simply look up the definition.
      v is defined as ... So v is a known velocity of v in the x,y,z,t frame.
      See how easy that was? No second guessing required after all.

      Now you just need to work on understanding what frames are and look up the definitions of x, x', t and t', and you might be capable of making sense.
      Last edited by Roy; 05-19-2016, 09:04 AM.
      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
        You made so many mistakes I don't know where to begin.
        Yep - I'm thought about trying to answer him, but even when he concedes he's wrong (the Airplane flying N-S) he reverts after a day or two. It's almost like one of those sci-fi movies where the alien has taken over his mind and every now and then you get a glimpse of someone rational, human, and then the eyes go black again and the alien reasserts itself.


        Jim
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post

          Is gravity a real force? How does it work? Over what distance does it operate?
          Gravity is real, but you are not believable.

          JM
          OK, so the answer is you're going to cut and run instead of clarifying your multiple contradictory claims. Sorry that reality frightens you so badly John. You can get help for that you know.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
            ... v is then not the velocity between x and x', ...
            Has light dawned?
            ... but only a variable with a label called "velocity".
            Oh well. So close, yet still so far.
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              If c is invariant at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t' and v is the same value at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'

              then what has the same value at two points is invariant at those two points.

              As v is the same value at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'

              then v is invariant at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'

              The logic here doesn't get off the ground. Invarient... under what?
              The value of v does not change at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', so v is invariant with respect to both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'.


              Invariance is something you apply to transformations, its a quantity that is kept the same. The lorentz transformation takes you from one inertial reference frame to another. If something is the same after a lorentz transformation, then its an invarient.
              v = v at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', so v is invariant apparent from any transform. v is a fundamental variable of gamma and is not subject to a transform. If "invariance is something you apply to transformations", as you say, then c is invariant and so is v.

              You said this - If something is the same after a lorentz transformation, then its an invarient - this is false.

              You should have said this - If something is the same after a lorentz transformation, then there is a contradiction. For the same would be the same both before and after the transform, but the transform is a variable other than 1. Hence, the same cannot be the same both before and after a transform. The implied contradiction within your statement is another indication that SR theory is false.

              I assume by c you mean speed of light, and (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') is the same point after a lorentz transformation, with v being the velocity of something at that point.
              c is invariant at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', with or without the transform. light at c is a fundamental postulate of SR, which means light is at c in all frames.

              In that case, yes, c would be the same after a lorentz transformation, because its invariant. However v would only be the case if v is c, or if the lorentz transformation takes one to the same reference frame. In other words, it does nothing.
              c is not transformed in SR. c is a fundamental variable of the gamma transform.

              If v is not c, then v' would be different quantity than v, as it would be changed by the lorentz transformation.
              v is not c - true.

              v' is never calculated in SR, because that would mean you would have two velocities at the one frame. SR assumes v is v at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'. At x',y'z',t', v is a given. If v' is then calculated, SR would conclude to both v and v' at x',y'z',t'. Such is not possible.

              v = v at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', but t is not = t at x',y'z',t', and x is not = x at x',y'z',t'. But t' and x' at x',y'z',t' are dependent upon x, v, and c. The theory is thoroughly illogical. Logically, if v = v at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', then x = x and t = t at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'. The constancy of v at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t' ensures x and t are also invariant, in so far as lengths don't shrink and time does not dilate.

              What do I mean by lengths don't shrink and time does not dilate? If light is at c, then c is a value with a unit of measure, of say km/s. Also, similarly, v is also a value with a unit of measure of km/s. For both c and v to be invariant at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', then both c and v have the same units of measure as km/s at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'. If time dilates and lengths contract then 1s and 1m at x,y,z,t changes to 1 dilated second and 1 dilated m at x',y'z',t'. But 1 dilated second and 1 dilated meter means the units of both time and length must have changed from frame x,y,z,t to x',y'z',t'. As the units of v and c do not change, then lengths don't shrink and time does not dilate.

              To confirm this analysis, look at how c is defined in the original SR paper. Where -

              c = 2AB/(t'A-tA)

              In each variable there is no length contraction, nor time dilation. Hence if c is invariant in both frames x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', and v is also invariant in the same frames, then there is no length contraction, nor time dilation for v in frames x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'.

              As St. Thomas Aquinas would say, a mistake in the beginning is a mistake indeed.
              Yes and that's why SR theory is unsound.

              JM

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                Has light dawned?Oh well. So close, yet still so far.
                Not much of an argument Roy. No context. Just compare a small selection of parts of sentences.

                In fact you haven't presented an argument at all.

                JM

                Comment


                • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  OK, so the answer is you're going to cut and run instead of clarifying your multiple contradictory claims. Sorry that reality frightens you so badly John. You can get help for that you know.
                  The only thing that scares me is considering how much time I would waste in dialogue with someone who is something less than honest.

                  Not interested.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    Yep - I'm thought about trying to answer him, but even when he concedes he's wrong (the Airplane flying N-S) he reverts after a day or two. It's almost like one of those sci-fi movies where the alien has taken over his mind and every now and then you get a glimpse of someone rational, human, and then the eyes go black again and the alien reasserts itself.


                    Jim
                    You won't answer me because you have no answer. You are covering over your loss with a non answer, arms length excuse.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      v is defined as ... So v is a known velocity of v in the x,y,z,t frame.

                      See how easy that was? No second guessing required after all.

                      Now you just need to work on understanding what frames are and look up the definitions of x, x', t and t', and you might be capable of making sense.
                      More selective quotes that demonstrate nothing. You need to learn how to make an argument.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        The only thing that scares me is considering how much time I would waste in dialogue with someone who is something less than honest.
                        I'm not asking you to dialog with yourself John. I'd like you to answer some questions on the multiple contradictory claims you've made about gravity.

                        You say gravity is real. If you drop a plate does gravity cause it to fall to the floor? How about if you fall off your rooftop? How about a parachutist jumping from a plane at 10,000ft? Does gravity cause the fall or not?

                        Not interested.
                        You mean you can't answer because your moronic MagicAethertm claims are indefensible.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          I'm not asking you to dialog with yourself John. I'd like you to answer some questions on the multiple contradictory claims you've made about gravity.

                          You say gravity is real. If you drop a plate does gravity cause it to fall to the floor? How about if you fall off your rooftop? How about a parachutist jumping from a plane at 10,000ft? Does gravity cause the fall or not?
                          Gravity is real, but there are different models of what science thinks it is. One such model is an aether theory.

                          You mean you can't answer because your moronic MagicAethertm claims are indefensible.
                          These issues have all been discussed. The evidence for the aether is given in GWW.

                          JM
                          Last edited by JohnMartin; 05-19-2016, 10:05 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                            v' is never calculated in SR, because that would mean you would have two velocities at the one frame. SR assumes v is v at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'. At x',y'z',t', v is a given. If v' is then calculated, SR would conclude to both v and v' at x',y'z',t'. Such is not possible.

                            v = v at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', but t is not = t at x',y'z',t', and x is not = x at x',y'z',t'. But t' and x' at x',y'z',t' are dependent upon x, v, and c. The theory is thoroughly illogical. Logically, if v = v at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', then x = x and t = t at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'. The constancy of v at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t' ensures x and t are also invariant, in so far as lengths don't shrink and time does not dilate.

                            What do I mean by lengths don't shrink and time does not dilate? If light is at c, then c is a value with a unit of measure, of say km/s. Also, similarly, v is also a value with a unit of measure of km/s. For both c and v to be invariant at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', then both c and v have the same units of measure as km/s at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'. If time dilates and lengths contract then 1s and 1m at x,y,z,t changes to 1 dilated second and 1 dilated shrunken m at x',y'z',t'. But 1 dilated second and 1 dilated shrunken meter means the units of both time and length must have changed from frame x,y,z,t to x',y'z',t'. As the units of v and c do not change, then lengths don't shrink and time does not dilate.

                            To confirm this analysis, look at how c is defined in the original SR paper. Where -

                            c = 2AB/(t'A-tA)

                            In each variable there is no length contraction, nor time dilation. Hence if c is invariant in both frames x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', and v is also invariant in the same frames, then there is no length contraction, nor time dilation for v in frames x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'.

                            JM
                            A correction to my own previous statement.

                            JM
                            Last edited by JohnMartin; 05-19-2016, 10:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              Gravity is real, but there are different models of what science thinks it is. One such model is an aether theory.
                              That's the MagicAethertm you haven't been able to provide a single detail on. If an object is seen under acceration how do you tell if it's gravity or the MagicAethertm supplying the force?

                              These issues have all been discussed. The evidence for the aether is given in GWW.
                              JM cowardly runs away again. The boy's worn out three pairs of sneakers he runs away so often.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                                That's the MagicAethertm you haven't been able to provide a single detail on. If an object is seen under acceration how do you tell if it's gravity or the MagicAethertm supplying the force?



                                JM cowardly runs away again. The boy's worn out three pairs of sneakers he runs away so often.
                                You are missing John's point. He is saying gravity is caused by the aether instead of "mass attraction" and "space bending" - so no he doesn't really believe in gravity as we undertand it at all. He believes that aether does all of the acceleration that we call gravity, and he is happy to call it gravity too. So when you say "does gravity cause this or magic aether.?" it is the same thing. Both.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X