Jump to content

esbo

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-50

About esbo

  • Rank
    Atom
  1. esbo

    The English Lisp

    It is mainly an upper class public school thing, I see so many who cannot pronounce an 'r', you often see them on the BBC when they are interviewing an 'expect' on something, experts are nearly always upper class as they can afford the education. They look Widiculous!!
  2. Merely saying "relativity" is not evidence, nor is saying "Relativity, which has been experimentally and observationally verified to an amazing degree over the last hundred years tells us that there is no absolute frame of reference." If it has been experimentally verified tell me about the experiment, I mean you must be pretty familiar with the experiment? Yes? I asked how strong the force of expansion was, not the rate of expansion, I can easily look that up, bit harder finding the force of expansion. As there is quite a bit we do not know, that seem to leave a lot of room for er
  3. What evidence is there that there is no absolute reference point of velocity and the same goes for time, where is the evidence? How strong is the force of expansion specifically, can you give a number? Given we do not know what dark energy is it seems there is a lot we do not understand about the universe
  4. I am lead to believe this is the case, if it's not then well I guess I am wasting my time!! So.....if they are how is this possible, we are told this is impossible. It seems to be the case that people will say yes some are moving faster than the speed of light but that is because space if expanding. That leads to new questions such as, how fast are they really moving. It seems to me that nothing is moving very fast really indeed I think that basically everything is basically pretty static and that there is a standard time for the universe which I will call 'real-time'. So
  5. Just to throw in my answer, B's world has contracted to due to the extra gravity, thus distance has changed and makes up for the change in time thus giving the same answer for C. I just know I am right on this one so please tell me I am right and email me my Nobel prize for physics. (just the money I have no more room for trophies). I mean B's rular has contracted (or expanded). Any how point is the light arrives at the same time for both, so I am thinking this is to do with simultaneousness, I mean lets face it they do not know what time the light was sent out only when it arrive
  6. Why claim is false, I am not aware of making a claim, I am basically say, ""explain this". So what specifically are you referring to when you say my claim is false. I am not sure so perhaps you could refresh me on the claim you say i have made. Well not really the sun is stationary and they are the ones moving.
  7. I know c is always measured as a constant, I just want the apparent anomalies explain but in a specific rather than generic way. The sun is not moving in the example, or at least not considered to be.
  8. Well there are examples which can be used and have been used to point out inconsistency. What I am saying is look at this example, it does not seem to fit with SR, where is the error. Now I think it is reasonable to expect someone to point out the error rather than simply parrot out some line about SR or maths or simultaneous need. I am finding those kind of non answers rather tiresome. And the "this is about maths bit" is a bit silly, it is about the question asked and the solution, the examples point out the inconsistencies that is the whole point of them. The error is pointed
  9. OK I have had a bit more time on this, and it sort of sound plausible to some extent apart from the fact I am not too happy with length contraction. It's perhaps better if that is addressed first as follows. Now,as I understand it we will always measure the speed of light as a constant. So say you have two people on opposite side of the earth measuring the speed, one spinning towards the light and one away from it. Because of the earth's spin on it's axis they are both doing the same speed but in opposite direction (we can ignore orbit speed to keep it simple). So doing the same speed
  10. Thanks at least you appear to given a comprehensive answer, I don't have time to go through it right now,, but I will later.
  11. I have now but it basically boils do to "Do the simultaneity calculation." and I don't believe that is a good enough answer it is too vague. You need to highlight the error. I mean you are basically say there is an error, go find it. However, my basic question is "where is the error in this?" So it's your job to find it!! Not mine!! As I said before, that is basically a cop out answer. You are basically saying you won't or rather can't find a specific fault in it. It is you who is using the old trick of telling me to find my own solution. Nice try but I am not falling
  12. The proposer has in effect provided his proof, you are saying it is wrong, I think the onus is you to prove he is wrong by say specifically where he is wrong. It's like in a maths question and you saying he has done his maths wrong, you need to provide a correction to the detail ie say in which specific line of maths there is an error. Just saying "you need to check your maths' is a bit of a cop out, I because anyone could say that irregardless of whether they knew were the error was. So if anyone can provide that specific detail I would be very grateful grateful. If they ca
  13. But I don't consider that a sufficient answer, he needs to explain precisely how simultaneity is the paradox. indeed you say 'suggests', basically it all seems to vague to be an adequate answer. More details is needed.
  14. A lot of scientist have been though of as crackpots in their time. Here is a list of a few of them. Arrhenius (ion chemistry) Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics) Baird, John L. (television camera) Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs) Bardeen & Brattain (transistor) Bretz J Harlen (ice age geology) Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930) Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800) Crick & Watson (DNA) Doppler (optical Doppler effect) Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria) Galvani (bioelectricity) Harvey, William (circu
  15. obviously time travel is impossible else you could travel back in time and shoot yourself dead. Loved the bit in the Family Guy video where one oft he Brian's was dead and Brian says shouldn't they all be dead then? The answer is of course no, if they were from before he died they coudl be alive , there should be no Brians from the future after he was dead. Brians from the past could have travelled into the future past his death though (if time travel forward is possible) so I guess forward time travel could be posssible, but not back.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.