The direction of the big bang

[cannabineer]

This isn't a compromise, it's my way or the highway! You don't seem to understand, I am telling you that there is no other valid choice other than the way I have it laid out in my diagram. That is the geometry of distance and time, as defined. This is not smoke and mirrors using a box of band-aids to keep alive a pet theory, these are the facts of distance and time.

Then prove it. Stop dancing the I'm-right-you're-wrong dance, and develop the math for us to see.
Because even though you are unilaterally declaring special relativity to be a theory with band-aids, that does not make it so.
The Michaelson-Morley experiment speaks directly to your hypothesis and diagram ... and discharges both.
Always remember that it only takes one inconvenient fact to destroy an otherwise beautiful theory.

But "I'm right because I say so" is not unfamiliar in this forum, and just because you are not defending the usual set of ideas that comes with that challenge ... does not make your posture any more palatable. cn

 

[guy incognito]

So you agree that what I say is 50 miles between us at 12:00 is what you say is 50 miles between us at 12:00? Do you also agree that at 12:30 if I say there is 25 miles between us that you also say there is 25 miles between us at 12:30?

No. There is no such thing as universal time. There is no 12:00 that we share precisely unless we occupy the same space. Any distance between us at all necessarily means we CANNOT agree on a simultaneous time. Also we are not talking about 2 observers each observing each other. We are talking about 2 different observers both observing an object moving at different speeds relative to each of us.

 

[Heisenberg]

No. There is no such thing as universal time. There is no 12:00 that we share precisely unless we occupy the same space. Any distance between us at all necessarily means we CANNOT agree on a simultaneous time. Also we are not talking about 2 observers each observing each other. We are talking about 2 different observers both observing an object moving at different speeds relative to each of us.

Hrmm you must have some really slippery balls or else his reach exceeded his grasp.

 

[guy incognito]

Maybe you care to help your friend out in time of need? I have him by the balls!

Closing speed is always agreed on, and in order for that to happen the distance and time must be agreed on, by every observer. There is no hanky panky smoke and mirrors with closing speeds, because the closing speed is always in the preferred frame, just like all of Moma's kiddies!

Thats not true. If I measure you going 10 miles and clock it at 10 seconds, and you measure 100 miles and 100 seconds, then we both agree on speed (1 mi/s), but not on distance or time.

 

[guy incognito]

Hrmm you must have some really slippery balls or else his reach exceeded his grasp.

What a fool! My balls are in the preferred frame and his hand was not. I guess he should have accounted for that in his calculations.

 

[guy incognito]

This isn't a compromise, it's my way or the highway! You don't seem to understand, I am telling you that there is no other valid choice other than the way I have it laid out in my diagram. That is the geometry of distance and time, as defined. This is not smoke and mirrors using a box of band-aids to keep alive a pet theory, these are the facts of distance and time.

By who? By you? I have explained what is wrong with your diagram numerous times. That is not the reality we live in. Your box is essentially the same thing used in the mm experiment. Use the sunrise as your source of light in your box/diagram and measure the speed. Then use the sunset as your source of light and measure the speed. Same light source, different direction of travel, same speed.

Those are only facts in the mind of the ignorant. Everyone else recognizes them for the illusions they are.

 

[Seedling]

No. There is no such thing as universal time. There is no 12:00 that we share precisely unless we occupy the same space. Any distance between us at all necessarily means we CANNOT agree on a simultaneous time. Also we are not talking about 2 observers each observing each other. We are talking about 2 different observers both observing an object moving at different speeds relative to each of us.

Let me make myself more clear, since you failed to address the concept being discussed here. We each see the closing speed as 50 MPH. We agree that we each see the same distance decreasing in the same duration of time. You agreed to that. So we agree that there is always a distance between us, and at any given distance we will each agree to that distance.

It's really non-negotiable to each agree, because all it is saying is that the distance between us is one distance, not two distances. I grab the end of a rope and you grab the other end of the rope. There is one distance between us at any given point in time. If either or both of us changes where they place their hand on the rope, then we both agree to the distance between us. There is no "speed of distance" there is the speed of light!

So let me ask you again, do you agree that the distance between each of us is the same for both of us at all times??

 

[Seedling]

Thats not true. If I measure you going 10 miles and clock it at 10 seconds, and you measure 100 miles and 100 seconds, then we both agree on speed (1 mi/s), but not on distance or time.

What do you mean we don't agree on distance and time? I ask you to tell me how much distance you traveled in 1 second, you answer 1 mile. I also measure you at traveling 1 mile in 1 second. There is no disagreement. We both agree that the distance is 1 mile and the time is 1 second. Tell me exactly what we disagree on?

 

[Beefbisquit]

What do you mean we don't agree on distance and time? I ask you to tell me how much distance you traveled in 1 second, you answer 1 mile. I also measure you at traveling 1 mile in 1 second. There is no disagreement. We both agree that the distance is 1 mile and the time is 1 second. Tell me exactly what we disagree on?

View attachment 2347471

.......................

 

[Seedling]

View attachment 2347471

.......................

If your language is Japanese and my language is English, and we are both looking at the same object then there is no disagreement. We are both describing the same thing when we each speak the name of the object in our own languages.

 

[Beefbisquit]

If your language is Japanese and my language is English, and we are both looking at the same object then there is no disagreement. We are both describing the same thing when we each speak the name of the object in our own languages.

That would be an accurate statement if that was what was happening here....


This thread is more like;

You: I think objects moving close to the speed of light perform like this, XYZ.

Everyone else, and every scientist, ever: That is a common misconception about objects moving very fast, here's why you're wrong; and here's a shit load of experiments to show you how you're wrong.

You: *Ignores all demonstrable evidence* No, no, no you don't get it.

EE and ESE: Yeah, we get what you're saying, but you're wrong. Please just look at the evidence.

You: Why can't everyone see how right I am, and how every other expert in this field is so blatantly naive and wrong.



I don't think I can really read this thread anymore; part of me compells me to keep reading, but part of me just says "Let it go"....

 

[Seedling]

That would be an accurate statement if that was what was happening here....


This thread is more like;

You: I think objects moving close to the speed of light perform like this, XYZ.

Everyone else, and every scientist, ever: That is a common misconception about objects moving very fast, here's why you're wrong; and here's a shit load of experiments to show you how you're wrong.

You: *Ignores all demonstrable evidence* No, no, no you don't get it.

EE and ESE: Yeah, we get what you're saying, but you're wrong. Please just look at the evidence.

You: Why can't everyone see how right I am, and how every other expert in this field is so blatantly naive and wrong.

More like this:

Me: Hey everyone, I have the facts, they are 2+2=4.
Everyone: Bullshit, that's old school thinking. We have mountains of evidence saying you're wrong.
Me: How can I be wrong, because the very definition of addition says I'm correct.
Everyone: BS, prove it. There is no absolute addition. Everyone does addition their own way.

I don't think I can really read this thread anymore; part of me compells me to keep reading, but part of me just says "Let it go"....

See ya! Don't the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

[Beefbisquit]

[/B]
More like this:

Me: Hey everyone, I have the facts, they are 2+2=4.
Everyone: Bullshit, that's old school thinking. We have mountains of evidence saying you're wrong.
Me: How can I be wrong, because the very definition of addition says I'm correct.
Everyone: BS, prove it. There is no absolute addition. Everyone does addition their own way.




See ya! Don't the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

let*

Classical relativity breaks down at high speeds. It's really that simple.

Your 2+2=4 is in reality something like;

1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998
+
1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998
=
3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998

Now, when you used speeds like 0.5c, the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 becomes a much larger problem. It's really that simple.

 

[Seedling]

let*

Classical relativity breaks down at high speeds. It's really that simple.

Your 2+2=4 is in reality something like;

1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998
+
1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998
=
3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998

Now, when you used speeds like 0.5c, the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 becomes a much larger problem. It's really that simple.

I didn't say 1.999+1.999=3.999 I said 2+2=4! Do you know the difference between 1.99 and 2.0?

 

[Doer]

The problem is a lack of education. I have a lack. I understand that. So, I'll say that human intuition is very powerful. But is has to be trained. Most of these math questions just sit there until someone has the trained intuition to take it farther.

HINT: cool guesses are not trained intuition. A scientifically and mathematically trained intuition can lead to new mathematical thought.

This is kinda like trolling. No math, but just the insistence and the tap dance. If he was selling it would be pure Snake Oil.

 

[Seedling]

The problem is a lack of education. I have a lack. I understand that. So, I'll say that human intuition is very powerful. But is has to be trained. Most of these math questions just sit there until someone has the trained intuition to take it farther.

HINT: cool guesses are not trained intuition. A scientifically and mathematically trained intuition can lead to new mathematical thought.

This is kinda like trolling. No math, but just the insistence and the tap dance. If he was selling it would be pure Snake Oil.

My equations and the math, with actual numbers are part of the diagram. Did you bother to look at it and understand every aspect of it?

 

[Beefbisquit]

I didn't say 1.999+1.999=3.999 I said 2+2=4! Do you know the difference between 1.99 and 2.0?

You can't just add velocities at near light speeds. It doesn't work like that, and it's already been demonstrated.

 

[cannabineer]

[/B]
More like this:

Me: Hey everyone, I have the facts, they are 2+2=4.
Everyone: Bullshit, that's old school thinking. We have mountains of evidence saying you're wrong.
Me: How can I be wrong, because the very definition of addition says I'm correct.
Everyone: BS, prove it. There is no absolute addition. Everyone does addition their own way.




See ya! Don't the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

The problem is that you're treating the 2+2=4 statement as axiom. In math, you get to do that, but not in physics. Michaelson-Morley showed that your 2=2 does not, in fact, yield precisely 4.
You are trying to impose definition where that is forbidden by the scientific method.
It is your stubborn unwillingness to admit the difference between mathematical and physical theorems that have given us over thirty pages of Mexican standoff.
This thread is going to be one of those undead ones: you insisting that you're arguing correctness from axiom (in the face of a century of thought), us insisting that you please pay attention to how physics are done. Discourse is interesting when it's with the reasonable. This ... has crossed into the uninteresting many pages ago. cn

 

[guy incognito]

Let me make myself more clear, since you failed to address the concept being discussed here. We each see the closing speed as 50 MPH. We agree that we each see the same distance decreasing in the same duration of time. You agreed to that. So we agree that there is always a distance between us, and at any given distance we will each agree to that distance.

It's really non-negotiable to each agree, because all it is saying is that the distance between us is one distance, not two distances. I grab the end of a rope and you grab the other end of the rope. There is one distance between us at any given point in time. If either or both of us changes where they place their hand on the rope, then we both agree to the distance between us. There is no "speed of distance" there is the speed of light!

So let me ask you again, do you agree that the distance between each of us is the same for both of us at all times??

No. We each measure the same closing speed. We do not measure the same distance or time. We have been over this a thousand times. No I do not agree we will agree on the distance, nor can we communicate our agreement/disagreement to each other because we don't have the same concept of time. My time is not the same as your time.

You are a fucking retard.

The evidence has been laid out clearly. By evidence I mean real measurements taken in laboratories, ALL of which agree with the theory of SR. Not a single experiment has ever been done that contradicts SR, nor has one ever been conducted that supports your conflicting theory. Lots of evidence, 100% of which converges at the conclusion that Einstein was correct and seedling was wrong. If you can provide even a single piece of actual evidence to support your theory I will apologize to you, and I will restructure my own beliefs to incorporate that evidence. Until then I only see a few possible options:

You understand SR and agree the evidence supports it, yet you are lieing because you like drama on web forums.

You do not understand SR and are holding tightly to your views according to your own intuition and ignoring valid evidence.

You do not understand SR because you have not been presented with the evidence to support it.


Given that I have personally provided you with not only a detailed explanation of how SR works in multiple scenarios, but linked you directly to the experiments that provided the supporting data, that leads me to believe you are either stupid or a troll. Either way I see no reason for this discussion to continue.

 

[Seedling]

This ... has crossed into the uninteresting many pages ago. cn

Well thanks for playing. I suggest that you stop being a glutton for punishment and stop visiting this thread if it is uninteresting for you. Why would you keep coming back for more??

The problem with your

2=2 does not, in fact, yield precisely 4.

statement is that you're wrong, 2+2=4, always! If you mix up your 2's with your 5's then that's your mistake, and it doesn't mean 2+2 does not equal 4. Your method obviously has massive mistakes if the mathematics suggest 2+2 does not equal 4. The very nature of counting and adding is at stake in your method, and yet you insist it is correct. Like I said before, bait and switch.