david345

That model is Relativity. It is the most well proven theory we have. If you watched the videos you would have seen that the block universe is also compatible with QM. It's possible relativity is wrong. It's possible pink unicorns exist. Congratulations you realized we don't know everything. Your argument brings nothing to the table. P.S. I've seen you on here many times before. Every time someone disagrees you start crying about them being a cyber bully. You need to grow up. You are a liar, a fraud, and a crackpot . That is what bothers me. Note: I did not accuse Michael and sensi of anything. Migl accused me of referring to them. I am simply responding to insults directed at me by Migl.

It now appears you are simply posting long posts in an attempt to bury the arguments put forth by professional scientists. (Not just those who claim to have degrees while offering no proof). At some point you must present a theory that is better then our best theory. So far all you have done is say "Relativity makes some predictions. My theory makes some predictions. Neither are 100% proven therefore both are equally as good." That's not going to cut it. These physicists are professors at prestigious universities. Einstein, Russel, Penrose, and many other highly accomplished physicists have supported the block universe view. You are simply a internet commenter. Neither you nor I know everything about the subject. This is why it is best to listen to the professionals and not the opinion of some internet commenter pushing "fringe" theories.

Once again you are resorting to the method mentioned in the previous post.

They are pet theories by non physicists such as yourself. Your argument comes straight off the wikipedia page for politicization of science. "Researcher William R. Freudenburg and colleagues have noted that where decisions and action are required, science can offer valuable degrees of certainty, however, it can never offer a guarantee.[4] John Horgan describes how this point is sometimes intentionally ignored as a part of what he calls an "Orwellian tactic".[5] Organizations sometimes seek to shift all discussion on some issues away from 'conclusions are most scientifically likely' to 'even the more probable conclusion is still uncertain.' Chris Mooney has claimed these tactics are used to gain more attention for views that have been undermined by scientific evidence. In his view, the media ends up in a misguided pursuit of "balance" which results in undue weight in reporting."

These are you tube videos explaining the subject from string theorist Brian Green and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. Most physicists believe we live in a block universe. Some uneducated internet trolls may disagree. They often use arguments such as "physics doesn't know everything therefore my theory is just as good." It isn't. That is why physicists don't use their theories. It is best to listen to the professionals.

The principia was written specifically to ensure that the the set of all sets was not included in itself. Godel's proof was written specifically for the principia. Obviously his proof would not have worked had it such a requirement. Godel's proof applies to ZFC. I'm sure you could find some crackpot "set theory" Nobody cares about your crackpot "set theory". Lets just be honest for a minute. You have no interest in telling the truth. You come on the various science sites with your numerous sockpuppets. Michael12345, md65536, tar, mrintelligentdesign, sillybilly, dadoulous, loislane, etc. You have proven time and time again you are willing to say whatever is necessary to "prove" we live in a ten thousand year old intelligently designed, geocentric, LET universe. When someone corrects you they are met with your standard response. "Your wrong because (insert word salad, lies, strawman, accusations of bullying and corruption, etc.)" YOU came on the internet speaking about the truth. You should not be surprised when someone shows up to tell it. Should I be a liar like you? Should I play along with your games? Should I act like there is meaning to your lies and word salads? Of course not. There are students who come to these sites in hope of finding legitimate information. Instead they get a multi-sockpuppet troll claiming to be a University professor. Perhaps you should consider your other thread before you taddle to the moderators like you did last time. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91433-why-im-here/

This is completely wrong. You are just making a fool of yourself with this ridiculous nonsense.

Nice try Michael, In the rest frame [math]\tau=t[/math] [math]x^0=ct[/math] for the rest frame [math]U^0= dx^0/d\tau =cdt/d\tau=c\gamma[/math] Cancelling out the c's [math]dt/d\tau=\gamma[/math] Because we are in the rest frame [math]\gamma=1[/math] and [math]\tau=t[/math] You are saying the speed of time is one second per second. a sec per sec is not a rate. Typically [math]dt/d\tau[/math] is considered the rate of time dilation.

Your absolutely right. I'm the unstable one. Just as you say.

1. My previous calculations already showed global time is not used for the speed of light. If you could count you would see that for frame 1 light was emitted at t=1it reached b at t=2 time of travel 1. For frame 2 it was emitted at t=.57735 and reached b at t=1.1547 time of travel=.57735. If global time was used the time would be the same for both observers. My calculations show time was not the same for both observers contradicting your unfounded claims. The same is true for distance. 2. In response to your nonsense about frames inside of frames. We do not see the universe picture in picture. We do not see other frames within our own. My math already showed the math works. If you disagree then post a Minkowski diagram done the correct way along with your calculations. Do not respond with another word salad. 3. Conventionality of simultaneity says you can choose a convention within a certain limit. Einstein made his choice. If you wan't to use relativity then you have to deal with his choice. If you don't want to use relativity then choose another convention. You can't say "You can choose but you can't make a choice because that would be a contradiction." Einstein made his choice. Everyone who isn't a crackpot agrees with his choice. If you don't like it then choose something else. I will not respond to another one of your word salads. I have wasted far too much time on you and all your sock puppets. ( please do not steal Facebook photos. It is immoral.)

Apparently you forgot to cite the paper you posted on vixra back in 2013.http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80668-sr-with-apparent-simultaneity/ This is just getting weird.

It turns out this idea is quite popular among young earth creationists. No surprise here. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anisotropic_synchrony_convention

Fine I'm tired of responding to your crackpot garbage.

Nope The transformation I wrote was: This is not a rotation. Contradicting your statement " It is just a rotation of the axes that shows a velocity boost. " One can represent the lorentz transformation as a hyperbolic rotation by setting: [math]\gamma = cosh\phi[/math] [math]\beta = tanh\phi[/math] You stated " The transformation you described correspond to the image on the right." The transformation I described does not correspond to the picture on the right. The picture is represented by the transformation: [math]\begin{vmatrix}x'\\t'\\\end{vmatrix}=\begin{vmatrix}cos\theta&sin\theta\\-sin\theta&cos\theta\\\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}x\\t\\\end{vmatrix}[/math] I stated the Minkowski diagrams are simplified pictures used to help amateurs visualize relativity. They are no replacement for the mathematical equations. The diagrams you posted are not even the most accurate versions. Instead you should use something like this. What's next? Will you argue that general relativity is wrong because the below image is contradictory. It has become clear who the troll is.

The boost is a rotation free lorentz transformation. The lorentz transformation as a hyperbolic rotation is: [math]\begin{vmatrix}ct'\\x'\\\end{vmatrix}=\begin{vmatrix}cosh\phi&-sinh\phi\\-sinh\phi&cosh\phi\\\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}ct\\x\\\end{vmatrix}[/math] This transformation is also a linear transformation. Nope, the the transformation corrosponding to the image on the right is: [math]\begin{vmatrix}x'\\t'\\\end{vmatrix}=\begin{vmatrix}cos\theta&sin\theta\\-sin\theta&cos\theta\\\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}x\\t\\\end{vmatrix}[/math] The Lorentz transformation is the transformation which is depicted in a Minkowski diagram. The Lorentz transformation is a linear transformation. It is becomming clear that you are just throwing around big words to create the illusion you know what you are talking about.