Is Relativity Reality?

[mistermack]

You might have read it, but you didn't bother to quote it. I wrote : ''Yes, and each one is identical to the preceding one. An infinity of nonsense, as I'm sure you well know''.
An honest argument deserves an honest quote.
.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You might have read it, but you didn't bother to quote it. I wrote : ''Yes, and each one is identical to the preceding one. An infinity of nonsense, as I'm sure you well know''.
An honest argument deserves an honest quote.
.

The second sentence doesn't make the first any less wrong. If it had, I might have bothered quoting it.

[ChildInAZoo]

An honest argument deserves an honest quote..

Where have you provided an honest argument? Your original argument against special relativity has nothing to do with special relativity because you don't know what that theory is. Rather than try to address you initial poor argument, you are making some kind of crazy tangent argument against the entire mathematical community. That's not honest. You don't even have an argument other than saying "infinity doesn't exist" over and over again.

[mistermack]

You might have read it, but you didn't bother to quote it. I wrote : ''Yes, and each one is identical to the preceding one. An infinity of nonsense, as I'm sure you well know''.
An honest argument deserves an honest quote.
.

The second sentence doesn't make the first any less wrong. If it had, I might have bothered quoting it.

Yeah right. Except that it makes it clear I was pointing out it was nonsense. And you try to criticise as if it's serious. A deliberately partial quote is a misquote in my book, if it omits vital context.
You people seem to be confusing the mathematical term 'real' with physical reality.
A number may be 'real' in maths, that doesn't make it real in reality. Especially when you throw in infinity like confetti.
Numbers don't exist, unless you're religious. Energy exists.
.

[mistermack]

Where have you provided an honest argument?

I'm stunned!! I put my argument up on a webpage, in crystal clear words and pictures, fully expecting it to be expertly refuted within hours. There is nothing ambiguous about any part of it. It may well be wrong, but it's perfectly clear.
In contrast, your best efforts seem to be wooly phrases such as '' you don't understand special relativity'' and other generalised total non-arguments.

What I've discovered since posting this is that nobody here understands SR, you have all read it, and can repeat parts of it word for word, but you clearly don't understand it, any better than me.
That may be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for me.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

I am not alone here in pointing out that your argument is not about SR. I have pointed out two specific flaws in your argument:
1) it uses additivity of velocities in a way not applicable to SR
2) it mistakes a combination of reference frames for a single reference frame

That you ignore these is your own problem.

[mistermack]

Yes, you did say that, and it may be right, but you didn't say where.
All your arguments are carefully non-specific generalities.
Like I said before, show me where, and I'll happily say, ''thanks, that's what I wanted to know''. ( I might also say '' what took you so long?'' )
.

[ChildInAZoo]

"So a new diagram below shows the range of possible directions and velocities of a reference frame. It takes the shape of a sphere, the blue shaded volume."
We might accept that this diagram represents the possible velocity vectors that can be assigned to a particular particle passing through the origin of the coordinate system. The diagram is itself a reference frame.

We can say that, for any given particle, if we construct a reference frame such that the particle passes through the origin or the reference frame, then the velocity assigned to the particle will be within that sphere.

"Now introduce one more particle, and it's travelling towards the first one at 100,000 kps so it's velocity is along the X axis. Now you have a problem. If you choose a frame for the original particle that is moving along the X axis towards the second particle and it's velocity is more than 200,000 kps, then the second particle is travelling in that frame at more than 300,000 kps, or more than the speed of light."
This passage has been singled out before.

Assuming that we already have a particle identified that is passing through the origin of our reference frame, then we have another particle in the same reference frame. There is no contradiction in describing two particles in the same reference frame.

If we were to change the reference frame in which we describe the particles, then we would have to use the proper Lorentz transformations. These would ensure that no particle with a coordinate speed of less than the speed of light would ever exceed the speed of light.

These points make the rest of the original argument moot. If the argument was put forward using reference frames correctly, then the apparent problems it raised would disappear. In particular, the original argument is not clear in what reference frame the speeds of the particles in question are introduced.

[mistermack]

Childinazoo, I can tell that you didn't write that, but thanks for posting it, and I'll look at it all the same.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

So now you are claiming that the argument that you linked to, that is on a page that is supposedly yours, is not written by you?

[mistermack]

No. You've lost me there.

[colubridae]

No. You've lost me there.

not that difficult dude.

[mistermack]

Colubridae, how old are you really? I'm a trusting soul, so I did believe 60 at first, but now I'm betting on 14.
.

[colubridae]

Colubridae, how old are you really? I'm a trusting soul, so I did believe 60 at first, but now I'm betting on 14.
.

are you calling me a fibber.

MM i'm shocked and apalled.

But i think you may have mistaken me for someone else. Someone who gives a shit for your ideas.


Please may I have permission to use this quote in my sig?

I would be honoured and grateful if you would say 'yes'. I would, of course, attribute the quote to you as it appears.

If the difference between one of your numbers and the preceding one is D, then
infinity x D = 1. Therefor D = 1/infinity which equals 0.
.

[PsychoSerenity]

So now you are claiming that the argument that you linked to, that is on a page that is supposedly yours, is not written by you?

Childinazoo, I can tell that you didn't write that, but thanks for posting it, and I'll look at it all the same.
.

No I think he's claiming that you didn't write this:

"So a new diagram below shows the range of possible directions and velocities of a reference frame. It takes the shape of a sphere, the blue shaded volume."
We might accept that this diagram represents the possible velocity vectors that can be assigned to a particular particle passing through the origin of the coordinate system. The diagram is itself a reference frame.

We can say that, for any given particle, if we construct a reference frame such that the particle passes through the origin or the reference frame, then the velocity assigned to the particle will be within that sphere.

"Now introduce one more particle, and it's travelling towards the first one at 100,000 kps so it's velocity is along the X axis. Now you have a problem. If you choose a frame for the original particle that is moving along the X axis towards the second particle and it's velocity is more than 200,000 kps, then the second particle is travelling in that frame at more than 300,000 kps, or more than the speed of light."
This passage has been singled out before.

Assuming that we already have a particle identified that is passing through the origin of our reference frame, then we have another particle in the same reference frame. There is no contradiction in describing two particles in the same reference frame.

If we were to change the reference frame in which we describe the particles, then we would have to use the proper Lorentz transformations. These would ensure that no particle with a coordinate speed of less than the speed of light would ever exceed the speed of light.

These points make the rest of the original argument moot. If the argument was put forward using reference frames correctly, then the apparent problems it raised would disappear. In particular, the original argument is not clear in what reference frame the speeds of the particles in question are introduced.

But, considering what you've written seems to be a direct response to his own theory, and diagram, and is therefore unlikely to appear anywhere on the internet other than another forum where he might have been discussing his theory - I can't see why - or why it matters.

Colubridae, how old are you really? I'm a trusting soul, so I did believe 60 at first, but now I'm betting on 14.
.

are you calling me a fibber.

MM i'm shocked and apalled.

How old do you think I am mistermack?.. 105?.. 6?