BurtJordaan » April 9th, 2017, 10:14 am wrote:Now you have some mathematical variant of relativity, of which you yourself said (not too long ago): "Ok I've finished the math but I don't yet have an understanding of what it's telling me. This is what it's saying in a nutshell; hopefully I'll understand it once I write out all the details:" We are now about 2 weeks and 40 screens later, and it seems you have neither completely stated, nor even developed your case yet.
In the light of this, your thread has had its stay in Physics and is going to Personal theories.
Since I have verified at least one of his claims, I am a little less certain of what is going on. Poor communication seems to be involved and I am not seeing a lot of effort on his part to do so. Whether this is inability, unwillingness, frustration on his part, or some other cause, I am less able to judge.
ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote:It takes time to build my argument, I'm not going to jump ahead and I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head to read this thread. Certainly I don't have the time to engage in Relativity 101 with Mitchellmckain or formulas from Relativity 3001 yet.
With a masters degree in theoretical physics and a specialization in special relativity, any claim he needs to educate me is absurd. I am left (aside from personal character issues) only with the conclusion that his unwillingness to engage in Relativity 101 is a refusal on his part to completely learn the basics himself.
ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote:Right now this thread's at a significant crossroads: what is the present. Positor asked if my definition is philosophy. Philosophy happens as soon as one starts to use words to describe ideas. Science happens when you start to apply math which is supported by experimental physical reality.
Science requires objectivity and that objectivity requires communication with other people. It is not just pinning math on things which makes something into science.
ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote:Relativity is based on many philosophical statements and assumptions that were born out by the math and physical experimental results. This is a confirmation of the philosophy but it doesn't mean another interpretation can't also be confirmed by the same results. In science, it's the simplest explanation, not the one that's been around the longest, that wins.
Incorrect. There is absolutely nothing simple about Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity -- not by a long shot. What wins in science is what works -- what is actual able to predict experimental results.
ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote:One of Einstein's most philosophical statements is, "Time is what a clock measures." So coffee is what a cup measures? I couldn't disagree with Einstein more on this because it spawns a bunch of complex barnacles that are required to make relativity work. The one we are discussing at this point in the discussion is relativity of simultaneity or sync offset.
I am reminded of when I hear creationists attacking evolution based on a critique of statements in "Origin of the Species." It is like they are treating this book like some kind of Bible and if they can find some sort of flaw in the text then it will disprove everything. That is, of course, laughable, because science doesn't work even remotely like their Bible bashing sessions. I think it is a mistake to take this statement of Einstein as an absolute philosophical statement. Rather it is a way of making time more concrete, especially in a universe where the Euclidean picture of things is wrong and time is something much more local. If there is a philosophical statement here it is that the traditional presumption that time is an absolute universal measure has to be abandoned. Everything we have discovered since has borne out this conclusion completely.
ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote:Then, as discussed in reams of previous posts, I started to see cracks in this scheme and none of my objections were being addressed so I made up my own explanations and came up with a different mathematical interpretation which also happens to be from relativity.
As far as I can tell the cracks here are in ralfcis' understanding NOT in the scientific community. Establishing that the entire scientific community is wrong and has been for the last century requires considerably more work that he has put into this.
ralfcis » April 9th, 2017, 8:38 am wrote:The present, as I will continue to mathematically derive in subsequent posts, is time itself; beyond what clocks have to say about it. It is true simultaneity, even though it is also a calculated one; because the true present cannot be read off a clock face.
Ok, here I see good cause for putting this into the personal theories section... it bears out my first impressions as well... oh well...