The most difficult part of this puzzle is merely getting your mind to accept that perhaps authority isn’t quite right long enough for it to see how simple it is. That is the effect of any cult mindset, “They can’t be wrong”.
If v could ever really be absolute zero, which it can’t and I had already explained in another thread, “Quality vs Quantity”.
That says that there is some special velocity which it is not permitted to travel. Sounds ridiculous. What happens if you attempt to go at that velocity? The universe speeds you up?
Absolute straight lines can not exist because absolute values cannot exist.
No two quality values can ever be infinitely equal.
And absolute zero cannot exist.
Frankly, if you had said that “which ever clock was moving at the same speed as the space around it is the one that would stop”, I would have counted that as correct enough. Then perhaps gone into what constitutes that space around it.
Anyway, to calculate c0 from the speed of a region of space so as to know not only when the light will reach the clock on the spaceship but also how fast the clock would be turning;
c0 = c00(1-adn) + Va*adn
Where
Va ≡ the velocity of the region.
But remember that adn has a max value associated with Va.
What a bunch of hokum.
:-"
Yeah well it might be hokum, that’s what every religion says about every other, every football team says about every other, and what Saddam Insane said about the US military… until they get onto the battle field. Talk against the other guys is easy even for the cowardly. But note that you couldn’t provide anything to defeat any of it.
Phyllo - It’s weird how difficult this is for you to set yourself to try to understand why RM is saying all this.
Since it’s very clear that it is absolutely impossible to conceive of this c00 concept without such a basic understanding of the nature of the claims being made.
This concept is required to understand where you’re at right now in the discusion…and you dont seem to have a clue what it means, even though it is explained several times in the thread… I can’t relate man, bizarre.
Understandable.
I spent years studying various scientific subjects and that helps me navigate through a forest of unsupported and unverified claims.
His latest claim forces there to be different measurements for the speed of light - one looking forward in the direction of motion, another looking back in the direction of motion and a third perpendicular to direction of motion. All contrary to experiments performed to measure the speed of light. He rejects any and every experiment which contradicts his theory.
Notice how everyone with a scientific background has stopped talking to him.
James produces insubstantial nonsense. Anyone who talks to him is discussing a fantasy world.
James is a charlatan. An entertaining one.
I can clearly see you noy grasping the logic of what he proposes to you.
Also, I can clearly see that the paradox sistuation DOES form a problem for the notion that there is no simulteneity.
Also, I can see that SR is problematic in that it assumes a fundamental fragmentation of reality (though only if you take it as religiously as some of the scientific posters here), and that where this works for a lot of types of measurements, there must be situations where it fails.
As james has said all along it’s a matter of logic, not of religion.
I guess who’s the “charlatan” is relative to what a person refuses to let go of.
Science without logic isn’t worth a lot to me.
Funny thing for him to say.
He is a self-declared prophet and ‘expert’. He has no mathematical basis for his RM:AO theory and no experimental observations to support it.
He looks down on those who actually do make observations and perform experiments …he calls them religious.
He is the religious one, writing a bible based on his own vision.
You can, of course, choose to believe him. [-o<
Lie.
I am only an expert at my own creation. Who wouldn’t be???
And “prophet”??
Where’d you invent that from?
Lie.
You simply reject even the obvious math and observations in favor of your religion.
Lie.
Those I call “religious” are those who haven’t seen any of what they profess and usually have no idea why any of it would be true other than a very faithful, “They say…”, “our scriptures say…”, “our prophets say…”. The religious are those who have to Lie and attack the messengers.
On the other hand, I am all about Nullius in verba.
What are you afraid of?
Thousands of non-sense books get written everyday.
Most, even when not non-sense don’t really tell you anything that you didn’t already know.
Of course, most people don’t believe anything they don’t already know, fore how else would they know to believe it?
Nullius in verba
But then of course, he is also free to believe your Lies.
Wow, what an insane lie.
He calls people religious who think that they know things without having thought about them.
Have you ever done experiments to verify SR?
…
Have you conceived of the theory?
What do you say, no?
Have you understood why light is consistent in each reference frame?
…
Of course you haven’t.
And yet you feel intellectually superior…
I’ve never believed him. I’ve followed his logic for years and every time, even though there are often periods of weeks where I am doubtful about the next step, it always checks out. Apparently you think that’s an unscientific method.
Phyllo, you are doing exactly what the charter of the Royal Society for the Advancement of Science was designed to prevent.
YOU are the anti-scientist.
Let’s just say that I don’t take James’ word for it. And leave it at that.
The problem isn’t who’s word that you don’t take, but rather who’s word that you DO take, having no “word”/“mind” of your own.
…and leave it at that.
Yes.
No one ever asked you to take anyone on his word. But you insist.
It’s a spectacle to behold how one after the other intelligent-seeming critic succumbs to his schoolteachers as soon as he notices that there might be a point where he has to think for yourself.
And by thinking I don’t mean ‘fill in the formula that was handed to you’.
James does not claim that SR is wrong in what it can calculate. He claims it’s incomplete, that it can’t calculate everything under all conditions.
And given the very nature of SR, this is obviously the truth. It disallows for some conditions. That means that there must be a way around it, if you manage to uphold the consistencies in your observations.
This demonstrates your misunderstanding of what James is saying. Consider a spaceship containing his flashers and his centralized clock. SR says that light is measured to have the same speed coming from front and rear flasher. When the flashers go off the light will travel to the clock , reach it simultaneously and stop it. James says that the speed is always different. That’s why his clock never stops. His clock won’t even stop when the spaceship is not moving. It always has some velocity compared to his metaframe. And he claims that the spaceship can’t have zero velocity.
IOW, James calculates a different result than SR. And it’s not under some extraordinary conditions.
And you just “demonstrated” that it is YOU who haven’t understood “what James is saying”.
I know and stated that SR predicts that the light must always be observed to travel at the same speed, c0. Your space ship question was after I started explaining the RM:AO version.
So once again you lie.
It is no wonder you don’t understand what people say, you are too busy trying to defend something/one rather than pay attention to what is really being said. You might want to consider exactly what it is that you are defending and how you are defending it, because it isn’t Science.
You and those very many like you are the living corruption of Science.
The same thing happens in your train. You claim that the clocks never stop.
Don’t make me cut&paste your own words.
What happen to “leave it at that”?
Another lie of yours?
Surely even you can figure out that for every lie you tell, I already have a defense ready and waiting, the simple truth.