ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Enlighten me and show me the realism as you see it.

Use a bit of imagination I'm sure you can figure it out.

Quote from: Solarwind on February 28, 2021, 03:20:32 AM

Quote

A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.

It depends on how you look at that situation.  For an alternative thinker, you are not doing very well are you.  There is more than one way to consider that scenario.

Enlighten me and show me the realism as you see it.

Ugggh
Observations are welll documented.
The specific how and why are up to the physicists.
How abut you catch up and meet us even at our level.
You have a diagram and a working model?

So far all we got from you is "crush on crush" and isndisputed as soon as a depressurized chamber is introduced.

Wheres your vortex map?
Wheres your photo of a crosshairtu-tube with VERTICAL plumb string?

Quote from: JJA on February 28, 2021, 04:55:36 AM

His explanation. You asked for something simplified and he did a good job of boiling it down to the basics.

What confuses you about it?

You worry about you. I'm sure sobchak doesn't require babysitting.

It's not sobchak who I'm trying to help here.  He doesn't need it.  You on the other hand, clearly do. 

If you can't even articulate what confuses you, perhaps you should try and puzzle it out more before just claiming confusion and giving up.

Quote from: sobchak on February 27, 2021, 10:54:46 PM

What happens -

When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated.  Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment.  Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!

Have a think about that one.  How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism? 

I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.

Then give your argument.  What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?

Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table. 

Explain it. 

Quote from: sobchak

  Physicists have shown that it falls out nicely from special relativity

What exactly is special relativity?
Nice and simple.

Quote from: sobchak

 and fundamental electromagnetism, which would suggest it is emergent behavior from the basic properties of energy and space time.

Tell me about this spacetime.

As I understand it, 'spacetime' is at the most basic level the conceptual model that time and space are linked instead of independent. Events can be described to occur on a 4 dimensional manifold with 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension.  It is a useful concept for mathematically describing the topology of the universe as it is understood.   

Special relativity is meanwhile the conceptual framework that attempts to describe and predict how events in this 4 dimension continuum are differentially observed from different frames of reference. 

How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.

OK how's this.  I don't know if you are aware but every year since 1979 (apart from last year for obvious reasons) a significant event in the amateur astronomy calendar is the Texas Star Party. It is held near Fort Davis in western Texas during the late spring. Amateur and professional astronomers from around the world convene for a few days of observing, imaging and presentations under some of the best skies in the world. I visited myself with a few friends in 1989.

Now ever year an excursion is offered to those attending the TSP to the nearby MacDonald Observatory situated in the Davis Mountains. This observatory includes a telescope which is equipped with a laser system which for many years was used to aim at some mirrors that were placed on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions. Yes I know.. you believe the Moon is just a holograph but bear with me OK.

The mirrors are able to reflect light from the laser back to Earth and so make it possible to determine the precise distance of the Moon. During my visit the Moon as visible in the sky and so as they had done during previous years the astronomer staff on duty at the time provided us with a demonstration of this experiment.  The observatory has software which allows the astronomers to aim the telescope precisely so that when the laser is activated it hits the mirrors and the reflected beam is detected and recorded just under 3 seconds later. Because the party that I was with had travelled the furthest distance to the TSP that year we were honoured with the job of firing the laser.

One lined up we were given the OK and the laser was fired.  A few moments later the reflected beam was detected by the camera attached to the telescope and the distance of the Moon came up on the screen. We were then shown all the measurements from previous years on a graph which showed how the Moon has been receding from Earth by about 2cm per year.  Since the laser can tell us the distance of the Moon and we know its period of orbit around the Earth (by observing its position on the sky) we can work out its mass.  That in turn leads us to another method of calculating the Earths mass.  But you will of course deny all that won't you.  Easier just to deny what you don't understand than try to learn it eh.

You will probably dismiss all of this as the astronomers trying to trick us or deliberately deceive us.  If so then they would have been guilty of deceiving a lot of people through all the previous years when visitors have attended the observatory and seen the same experiment being performed. 

The question is why would they do that?  What would they stand to gain by such deliberate deception?  They are simply performing an experiment to determine the distance to the Moon.  There is a theory that the Moon was created by a collision between the Earth and another forming planetesimal and the Moon formed from the debris from this collision.  This is what caused the tilt of the Earths axis, the spinning of the Earth among other things.  Through geological records the spin of the Earth is known to have been more rapid (shorter days and nights) in the past and so the Earth spin rate is slowing down.  Exactly what we would expect from such a collision long ago in the past.  The Moon is moving away from us.  Again exactly what you would expect if it was involved in a collision with Earth in the past.  The same effects are observed with snooker balls after a collision.  In science you see we don't just 'make things up'.  We observe re-produceable, similar conditions and watch what happens. Not just once but many times. 

Lots of aspects of science seem to tie in together and support this model.  The planetesimal involved with the collision with Earth missed the iron rich core of the Earth which is how the Earth managed to survive.  The outer layers of Earth have less iron content than the core and that explains why lunar rock samples were also found to contain less iron content than terrestrial rock samples do.  In short the evidence from multiple branches of science link together to help build this model.  And through the experiment I became part of all that.

You might also be aware of the Earths precession or polar wobble.  That is something that takes place over a 26,000 year period.  In short it means different stars have in the past been where Polaris is now. Precession is not directly noticeable over a human life time but star charts have to be updated every few years to account for a tiny amount of this wobble.  If you look at a star chart you will see what epoch it is plotted for. Epoch 1950, Epoch 2000 and so on.  This polar wobble is more evidence of the collision that happened in the past.  If you watch snooker balls in slow motion you will notice that they also wobble around a particular axis following a collision with another ball. 

How much evidence is there to support your alternative belief that the Sun and Earth are both holographic projections, reflected off an up to now, undetected dome?  Well when you find some beyond the confines of what goes on in your head then be sure to let us know.

One last question I would put to you.  What is the difference between what we are told, and what we are taught?

 

Quote from: JackBlack on February 27, 2021, 10:39:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2021, 02:57:57 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 27, 2021, 12:52:41 PM

I fully understand how the 2 outward flowing streams of air would interact to cause a repulsive force. The problem for you is that if you were to turn both magnets around 180 degrees, they still repel, but under your model it would be like putting the nozzles of 2 vacuum cleaners together.
At that point they don't repel, they attract and stick together.

Try it.

Try putting 2 vacuum cleaners together?
What are you now trying to claim that they magically repel?
You already appealed to the Magdeburg hemispheres which is basically the same issue.

Try it instead of waffling.

Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.
And again, you have already appealed to the Magdeburg hemispheres. Are you now going to change your claim to these hemispheres magically repelling each other?

If you think they are going to repel, explain HOW!
If you can't, admit you have no explanation.

Quote from: Solarwind on February 27, 2021, 03:27:00 PM

No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time.  Not during alternate minutes.

A tug of war

A tug of war has nothing to do with it.
Think of it more like a rope being used to hold an object up.

You know it makes no sense.

You mean you have no rational objection to it so you need to dismiss it by falsely claiming it makes no sense.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 27, 2021, 04:07:10 PM

But observable observed observation - yes - it shows air, literal air in the conventional definition, the air we breathe, is not pushing things down.
So if you care to go beyond crush-on-crush then maybe we can all learn more about your denP.

Denying barometers is what you're doing.

No, that is clearly you.
Simple barometers like a mercury tube barometer clearly demonstrate that gravity (the thing that makes things fall and have weight) is separate to air pressure, as does plenty of other things.

It amazes me how you don't think we are being crushed by atmospheric pressure.

No one here is denying that the atmosphere applies a force to people.
The only thing we dismiss as pure nonsense (and have explained why) is your fantasy that the air magically pushes things down.
We know the air applies a force to everything in it.
We know the force is proportional to the pressure and the area.
We know that predominately, this is a force which merely tries to crush things, rather than push in any particular direction.
We know that in order to have directionality you need a pressure gradient.
We know that for something like the atmosphere, with a pressure gradient, this results in the atmosphere applying a stronger push from the high pressure side of the gradient towards the low pressure side.
We know that for something like the atmosphere, with a pressure gradient which has the pressure increase as you get lower, this will result in an upwards force on the object.

Meanwhile, you outright deny this and instead claim that the air somehow magically pushes things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient, that it magically pushes down with a force that is proportional to mass, rather than proportional to the area and pressure, or area and pressure gradient (which effectively means volume and density OF THE AIR).

So no, you are the one in denial, not us.

How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.

As that relies upon gravity that would be an entirely useless exercise. You will dismiss it simply for not using your magic air.
And again, STOP DODGING AND DEMANDING EXPLANTIONS FROM OTHERS AND START PROVIDING YOUR OWN!

YOU are the one claiming EVERYTHING is the result of pushing forces with no need for any pull.
YOU are the one claiming air can magically push everything down in direct defiance of the known laws of how gasses work.
YOU are the one claiming to be able to explain magnets by a vortex of air.

So stop deflecting and either explain or admit you can't.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 28, 2021, 02:43:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 01:48:30 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on February 27, 2021, 03:27:00 PM

No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time.  Not during alternate minutes.

A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
So don't be giving me the moon supposedly pulling on Earth.
You know it makes no sense.

A tug of war does not involve orbital mechanics.

The moon is in orbit around the earth due to earths greater gravitational pull on the moon. Your mind is closed to orbital mechanics and all things science, so ofcourse the moon orbiting around earth will make no sense to you.

It's like you were held back in pre-school for the last 56 years, destined to repeat your kindergarten lessons over and over til the day you die. All because you refuse to address what happened to you.

You're always welcome to PM me if you want a confidential chat.

How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.

I have a better idea.  Why don't you explain orbital mechanics to me, nice and simple.

Anything I type, you will announce I read it somewhere, and quoted, which is intolerable to you. So, instead of going around in circles, how about you do the work?

Meanwhile, my offer still stands. I've counselled many people in my line of work, as you might well imagine.

As I understand it, 'spacetime' is at the most basic level the conceptual model that time and space are linked instead of independent.

What is spacetime in terms of time and space being linked.
Give me a nice easy analogy. Nice and simple for my child like mind.

 Events can be described to occur on a 4 dimensional manifold with 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension.

A 4 dimensional manifold?.....3 spatial dimensions?......one time dimension?.......Can you explain what this is all about, nice and simple for my child like mind. A simple analogy.

 It is a useful concept for mathematically describing the topology of the universe as it is understood.

Topology of the universe? What does this mean?
Can you explain this in a very simplistic manner. A simple analogy for my child like mind.

   

Special relativity is meanwhile the conceptual framework that attempts to describe and predict how events in this 4 dimension continuum are differentially observed from different frames of reference.

What exactly is special relativity in it's simplest term. A simple analogy will suffice. Something that makes sense.
Also can you explain in simple terms, the 4 dimension continuum.


Serious questions and an appeal for absolute simplistic analogies in with the answers, thanks.

Can you explain this in a very simplistic manner.

Can you explain anything? Anything at all?
Because you have yet again deflected from your complete inability to explain your model, your complete inability to explain why things fall (and why some things don't), or how magnets magically work based upon a vortex of air?

Quote

How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.

OK how's this.  I don't know if you are aware but every year since 1979 (apart from last year for obvious reasons) a significant event in the amateur astronomy calendar is the Texas Star Party. It is held near Fort Davis in western Texas during the late spring. Amateur and professional astronomers from around the world convene for a few days of observing, imaging and presentations under some of the best skies in the world. I visited myself with a few friends in 1989.

Now ever year an excursion is offered to those attending the TSP to the nearby MacDonald Observatory situated in the Davis Mountains. This observatory includes a telescope which is equipped with a laser system which for many years was used to aim at some mirrors that were placed on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions. Yes I know.. you believe the Moon is just a holograph but bear with me OK.

The mirrors are able to reflect light from the laser back to Earth and so make it possible to determine the precise distance of the Moon. During my visit the Moon as visible in the sky and so as they had done during previous years the astronomer staff on duty at the time provided us with a demonstration of this experiment.  The observatory has software which allows the astronomers to aim the telescope precisely so that when the laser is activated it hits the mirrors and the reflected beam is detected and recorded just under 3 seconds later. Because the party that I was with had travelled the furthest distance to the TSP that year we were honoured with the job of firing the laser.

One lined up we were given the OK and the laser was fired.  A few moments later the reflected beam was detected by the camera attached to the telescope and the distance of the Moon came up on the screen. We were then shown all the measurements from previous years on a graph which showed how the Moon has been receding from Earth by about 2cm per year.  Since the laser can tell us the distance of the Moon and we know its period of orbit around the Earth (by observing its position on the sky) we can work out its mass.  That in turn leads us to another method of calculating the Earths mass.  But you will of course deny all that won't you.  Easier just to deny what you don't understand than try to learn it eh.

You will probably dismiss all of this as the astronomers trying to trick us or deliberately deceive us.  If so then they would have been guilty of deceiving a lot of people through all the previous years when visitors have attended the observatory and seen the same experiment being performed. 

The question is why would they do that?  What would they stand to gain by such deliberate deception?  They are simply performing an experiment to determine the distance to the Moon.

I have no issues with reflections or bouncing lasers from something.
Just not distant so called moons and such.

I've been through this before about firing so called lasers at a moon that is supposedly spinning at 10 mph n the opposite direction to what Earth spins at, as we're told, with Earth spinning at 1000 mph, give or take depending on where you are on it, as we're told.

Firing a laser in that set up and getting the rebound back to the scope is silly in the extreme.
Rebounding a signal on a stationary Earth and getting it back is extremely feasible.

  There is a theory that the Moon was created by a collision between the Earth and another forming planetesimal and the Moon formed from the debris from this collision.  This is what caused the tilt of the Earths axis, the spinning of the Earth among other things.

There's a story that a massive spaceship was built that went warp speed, etc and had a massive crew on it that could visit planets by beaming up and onto them.
It's a good story.
Maybe they can make that story you believe, into a film.

 Through geological records the spin of the Earth is known to have been more rapid (shorter days and nights) in the past and so the Earth spin rate is slowing down.

In the past there were big dinosaurs roaming about, around 65 million years ago which is very very early compared to the story of Earth's 4.5 billion years of age, so called spinning planet.
The stories are pretty good but they should really be on the best guess shelf of the library.

  Exactly what we would expect from such a collision long ago in the past.

Yep. I expected (when I was a kid) the famous five to solve the mysteries in the books. They never disappointed me.
Julian, Dick and Ann, George and timmmmmmmy the dorhorhog.

  The Moon is moving away from us.

As a hologram, maybe.

  Again exactly what you would expect if it was involved in a collision with Earth in the past.

Nothing. I don't expect anything because it's all a complete load of flannel, in my absolute honest opinion.

  The same effects are observed with snooker balls after a collision.

Are you trying to make it a bit more believable?

  In science you see we don't just 'make things up'.

In science, no. In explanations pertaining to it, told by people who pretend to be scientists in this so called field of story telling....yes they do.

 We observe re-produceable, similar conditions and watch what happens. Not just once but many times.

Clearly you do not.
If you did you would observe the most simplest form which is sea level and understand it kills the nonsense of gravity and global spins...etc.

 

Lots of aspects of science seem to tie in together and support this model.

Absolutely none of it.
Lots of fictional storylines and story telling support the fictional model.

  The planetesimal involved with the collision with Earth missed the iron rich core of the Earth which is how the Earth managed to survive.

Of course. I mean, this is why we're luckily here, right?
If you want to believe this utter garbage then feel free. Feel free.
I should tell a story how the bin man fell in my wheelie bin and went down to Earth's core and was pushed out of the other side with a cork hat on, riding a kangaroo into the back yard of a woman called Sheila and promptly tipped into her wheelie bin, only to come right back through the Earth and end up coming back out of his neighbours bin down the street.

  The outer layers of Earth have less iron content than the core and that explains why lunar rock samples were also found to contain less iron content than terrestrial rock samples do.

Hmmm, how convenient.

  In short the evidence from multiple branches of science link together to help build this model.

You mean the collaborated fictional stories aid to create a picture or a reality to the naive paupers of the world..

  And through the experiment I became part of all that.

You became duped. In my opinion. Assuming you are telling the truth in the first place.

You might also be aware of the Earths precession or polar wobble.

I've heard a little about it.

  That is something that takes place over a 26,000 year period.

Give or take a few days, eh?

  In short it means different stars have in the past been where Polaris is now.

And you're absolutely sure of this, right?

 Precession is not directly noticeable over a human life time but star charts have to be updated every few years to account for a tiny amount of this wobble.

Updated by who?

  If you look at a star chart you will see what epoch it is plotted for. Epoch 1950, Epoch 2000 and so on.  This polar wobble is more evidence of the collision that happened in the past.

There's no evidence and you know it.

  If you watch snooker balls in slow motion you will notice that they also wobble around a particular axis following a collision with another ball.

Are you adding this in as a convincer?

 

How much evidence is there to support your alternative belief that the Sun and Earth are both holographic projections, reflected off an up to now, undetected dome?

To me, plenty. To you...none. This is just how it is because you have no desire to understand from my side because you head is crammed full of odd balls tuff from the side you follow.

  Well when you find some beyond the confines of what goes on in your head then be sure to let us know.

You'll just have to tag along, as and when I have my say....or don't.The choice is entirely yours.

One last question I would put to you.  What is the difference between what we are told, and what we are taught?

It depends on who is telling you and who is teaching you.

Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.

Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 28, 2021, 12:31:29 PM

Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.

Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.

You mean you are clearly using whatever excuse you can to avoid the issue.
The 2 nozzles are drawn towards each other (just like the dust is) and basically latch onto each other. Then the vacuum cleaner starts making a different noise as it is no longer sucking the air through.

Again, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens.
Again, it is the same as the hemispheres you already appealed to.

Now stop with the pathetic dodging and explain how it magically causes repulsion, or admit your model fails to match reality.

I have no issues with reflections or bouncing lasers from something.
Just not distant so called moons and such.

Of course, you only have a problem when it shows you are wrong.
If it doesn't show you are wrong, then you are happy to accept it.

I've been through this before about firing so called lasers at a moon that is supposedly spinning at 10 mph n the opposite direction to what Earth spins at, as we're told, with Earth spinning at 1000 mph, give or take depending on where you are on it, as we're told.
Firing a laser in that set up and getting the rebound back to the scope is silly in the extreme.

Why?
Just what part is silly?
Can you point out anything at all actually wrong with it, or can you only repeatedly assert it is silly/nonsense?
Because the latter is all you seem to be capable of doing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 03:54:07 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 28, 2021, 02:43:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 01:48:30 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on February 27, 2021, 03:27:00 PM

No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time.  Not during alternate minutes.

A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
So don't be giving me the moon supposedly pulling on Earth.
You know it makes no sense.

A tug of war does not involve orbital mechanics.

The moon is in orbit around the earth due to earths greater gravitational pull on the moon. Your mind is closed to orbital mechanics and all things science, so ofcourse the moon orbiting around earth will make no sense to you.

It's like you were held back in pre-school for the last 56 years, destined to repeat your kindergarten lessons over and over til the day you die. All because you refuse to address what happened to you.

You're always welcome to PM me if you want a confidential chat.

How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.

I have a better idea.  Why don't you explain orbital mechanics to me, nice and simple.

I have absolutely no idea what orbital mechanics are in real life.

Can you give me a proof of orbital mechanics so I can see it in action in real time?
Or at least simply explain it.
If you can't then don't worry about it.

Anything I type, you will announce I read it somewhere, and quoted, which is intolerable to you. So, instead of going around in circles, how about you do the work?

You did, didn't you?

However, you seem to know it's a reality, so show me or explain it nice and simple.

Meanwhile, my offer still stands. I've counselled many people in my line of work, as you might well imagine.

I don't need anything from you so go about your business however you choose and with whatever fantasy you go with.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 03:03:05 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 28, 2021, 12:31:29 PM

Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.

Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.

You mean you are clearly using whatever excuse you can to avoid the issue.
The 2 nozzles are drawn towards each other (just like the dust is) and basically latch onto each other. Then the vacuum cleaner starts making a different noise as it is no longer sucking the air through.

There is no sucking of air through, so try again.
And clearly you have not performed this two cleaner experiment.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 02:18:55 AM

Can you explain this in a very simplistic manner.

Can you explain anything? Anything at all?
Because you have yet again deflected from your complete inability to explain your model, your complete inability to explain why things fall (and why some things don't), or how magnets magically work based upon a vortex of air?

I honestly don't think anything can ever be explained to you that goes against your grain. Seriously.

Quote from: sobchak on February 28, 2021, 08:25:44 AM

As I understand it, 'spacetime' is at the most basic level the conceptual model that time and space are linked instead of independent.

What is spacetime in terms of time and space being linked.
Give me a nice easy analogy. Nice and simple for my child like mind.

Quote from: sobchak

 Events can be described to occur on a 4 dimensional manifold with 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension.

A 4 dimensional manifold?.....3 spatial dimensions?......one time dimension?.......Can you explain what this is all about, nice and simple for my child like mind. A simple analogy.

Quote from: sobchak

 It is a useful concept for mathematically describing the topology of the universe as it is understood.

Topology of the universe? What does this mean?
Can you explain this in a very simplistic manner. A simple analogy for my child like mind.

   

Quote from: sobchak

Special relativity is meanwhile the conceptual framework that attempts to describe and predict how events in this 4 dimension continuum are differentially observed from different frames of reference.

What exactly is special relativity in it's simplest term. A simple analogy will suffice. Something that makes sense.
Also can you explain in simple terms, the 4 dimension continuum.


Serious questions and an appeal for absolute simplistic analogies in with the answers, thanks.

I can try, but please keep in mind these are simply conceptual frameworks we use to generalize observations and make quantitative predictions.  And the geometric topology that is used in these conceptual frameworks, while incredibly interesting, is a devilish complex subject.  To truly understand the concepts you really do have to at some level understand the mathematics that are being used in their construction. 

This unfortunately means that if you only find arguments compelling if you FULLY understand them, I imagine relativity will forever be out of your reach.  That's okay, there is no need to ‘believe’ in it, and you can dismiss it as incomprehensible if you would like,  OR, perhaps a more open minded approach, you could be agnostic to it, and neither say it is nonsense, NOR believe it is a good approximation of the world around us. 

Regardless though, here is my attempt at a simple description of relativity and spacetime using an analogy, others can contribute, correct, or complain as desired  -

You are sitting on a train, looking at a clock while for some reason holding a ruler.  It is completely dark outside, and the train is almost totally silent.  Suddenly, another train goes by in the opposite direction, and you pass by a lit window where someone else is sitting with an identical ruler in their hands next to an identical clock. 

So how fast did the other train appear to YOU to go by?  Well, if you took some high speed photography, and measured the distance the ruler moved in a set amount of time, you could calculate his APPARENT speed to your position.  If your train was going at 100 kph, and the other train was going at 50 kph, it would APPEAR to YOU that the other train went by you at 150 mph.  Same for the guy on the other train, it would appear to HIM that you went by at 150 mph. 

This is the core of relativity, which is a framework for generalizing such observations and making predictions about how events APPEAR in other moving frames of reference. 

The theory of special relativity mathematically builds such predictive frameworks, creating quantitative mathematical formulations for how things look from other points of view.  It adds a special constraint though.   It stipulates that the speed of light is constant no matter what your frame of reference is.  And when you add this constraint to the underlying mathematics, you end up building some new and incredibly interesting predictions about what you should observe.

In the context of our example above, special relativity PREDICTS that if you watched the clock in the other train with incredible precision, you would find that it moved at a very slighter slower rate than the one next to you was running, and if you could somehow measure his ruler with an incredible degree of precision, you would also be PREDICTED to find it was ever so slightly shorter than yours.

This is one of the main predictions of the theory, that observations of both space and time are dependent upon relative frames of reference. 

‘Spacetime’ then, is simply this concept; the intertwining of space and time into a single mathematical description that can be used to make quantitative predictions.   

Any chance you want to answer this -

Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer.  If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?

Quote from: sobchak on February 27, 2021, 10:54:46 PM

What happens -

When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated.  Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment.  Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!

Have a think about that one.  How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism? 

I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.

Then give your argument.  What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?

Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table. 

Explain it. 

Thanks once again for the sentence by sentence analysis of my post Sceptimatic. I didn't expect you to believe any of it since it is a bit beyond you I know.

I really posted it because I thought the others might find it interesting.  I won't find it offensive that you can't bring yourself to believe any of what I've said  I'm used to that kind of thing from you now.

If there is so much evidence available to support your version of things where is it? You demand explanations of everything from us yet you cannot explain anything at all from your side. Where is the evidence? And don't just say its all been explained already because you know damn well it hasn't. That just your poor excuse for dodging the question. So where is your evidence?

You became duped. In my opinion. Assuming you are telling the truth in the first place.

Why wouldn't I be telling the truth?  Why are you so obsessed with people lying all the time.  I asked you this before but you denied it as usual. What would I or anyone else stand to gain by lying all the time about everything that you personally don't believe?

Thanks once again for the sentence by sentence analysis of my post Sceptimatic. I didn't expect you to believe any of it since it is a bit beyond you I know.

I really posted it because I thought the others might find it interesting.  I won't find it offensive that you can't bring yourself to believe any of what I've said  I'm used to that kind of thing from you now.

If there is so much evidence available to support your version of things where is it? You demand explanations of everything from us yet you cannot explain anything at all from your side. Where is the evidence? And don't just say its all been explained already because you know damn well it hasn't. That just your poor excuse for dodging the question. So where is your evidence?

Just saying I thought it was interesting, thanks for sharing.   The moon range-finding experiment especially was really cool to read about, must have been fun to see that. 

Obviously Sceptimatic doesnt believe it and all, and that's fine, but I struggle to even understand what he thinks actually happened there?  Does he think you are lying about it?  Was it a giant scam by the worldwide conspiracy?  It is just such a bizarre thing to so blatantly fake or lie about, isn't it?

I can get the alternative thinking, and imaging your own solutions to problems, but what I struggle with are when these MASSIVE conspiracy theories are required to make something feasible.

Regardless though, here is my attempt at a simple description of relativity and spacetime using an analogy, others can contribute, correct, or complain as desired  -

You are sitting on a train, looking at a clock while for some reason holding a ruler.  It is completely dark outside, and the train is almost totally silent.  Suddenly, another train goes by in the opposite direction, and you pass by a lit window where someone else is sitting with an identical ruler in their hands next to an identical clock. 

So how fast did the other train appear to YOU to go by?  Well, if you took some high speed photography, and measured the distance the ruler moved in a set amount of time, you could calculate his APPARENT speed to your position.  If your train was going at 100 kph, and the other train was going at 50 kph, it would APPEAR to YOU that the other train went by you at 150 mph.  Same for the guy on the other train, it would appear to HIM that you went by at 150 mph. 

This is the core of relativity, which is a framework for generalizing such observations and making predictions about how events APPEAR in other moving frames of reference.

Ok, so, If I knew my train was travelling at 100 mph and the other train was moving in the same direction at 1 mph, I'd know it was moving at 1mph in the same direction by using this ruler and clock thing and decide that my train is going 99mph?

But the reality is, I'm travelling at 100mph, regardless. and the other train is travelling at 1mph, regardless.


Is this the premise?


 

The theory of special relativity mathematically builds such predictive frameworks, creating quantitative mathematical formulations for how things look from other points of view.  It adds a special constraint though.   It stipulates that the speed of light is constant no matter what your frame of reference is.  And when you add this constraint to the underlying mathematics, you end up building some new and incredibly interesting predictions about what you should observe.

Predictions for what though?
They are predictions for reality from one person's reference point, just a trick of the mind as to what appears to stand out.

In the context of our example above, special relativity PREDICTS that if you watched the clock in the other train with incredible precision, you would find that it moved at a very slighter slower rate than the one next to you was running, and if you could somehow measure his ruler with an incredible degree of precision, you would also be PREDICTED to find it was ever so slightly shorter than yours.

You could argue that the person you see wobbling that pencil is just bending it by optical illusion but the reality is, it's a straight pencil being manipulated to your vision.

This is one of the main predictions of the theory, that observations of both space and time are dependent upon relative frames of reference.

Yes but the frames of reference do not give out real usable answers for anything physical.

 

‘Spacetime’ then, is simply this concept; the intertwining of space and time into a single mathematical description that can be used to make quantitative predictions.

So it's all just a concept. It poses to physical reality...right?

Basically there are no facts and yet I'm almost having to accept it even if I do so in a sort of agnostic mindset, rather than just tell it for what I see it as.


Anyone can make this stuff up because there's no proof to it.
That's not any issue too me. Plenty of things d get made up and are/can be intriguing. I'd just rather be told they're not backed up by any real facts and are told as a story of perceivement.


Do you agree?

Any chance you want to answer this -

Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer.  If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 03:50:06 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 27, 2021, 10:54:46 PM

What happens -

When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated.  Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment.  Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!

Have a think about that one.  How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism? 

I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.

Then give your argument.  What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?

Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table. 

Explain it.

Do you agree that to create an electromagnet you have to create a winding.
Do you accept that the winding will create a sort of vortex. a spiral?

Thanks once again for the sentence by sentence analysis of my post Sceptimatic. I didn't expect you to believe any of it since it is a bit beyond you I know.

I really posted it because I thought the others might find it interesting.  I won't find it offensive that you can't bring yourself to believe any of what I've said  I'm used to that kind of thing from you now.

If there is so much evidence available to support your version of things where is it?

Some has been given. Some is firmly with me.

 You demand explanations of everything from us yet you cannot explain anything at all from your side.

I demand nothing from you. You are free to disengage at any time. You are also free to say what you want (within forum rules) when you want.
I ask of you. The rest is up to you.

 Where is the evidence? And don't just say its all been explained already because you know damn well it hasn't.

All of it hasn't. Some of it has. Most of it you and other refuse to even think on which sets you back to square one. That's down to you.
Try being yourself for once.

 That just your poor excuse for dodging the question. So where is your evidence?

I try not to dodge anything but find explaining certain things to be a waste of time with some of you people.

Quote

You became duped. In my opinion. Assuming you are telling the truth in the first place.

Why wouldn't I be telling the truth?

You may think you are. I'm saying you are duped. I'm not calling you a liar. You are insinuating that I am. That's down to you.

 Why are you so obsessed with people lying all the time.

I'm not obsessed but I simply do not trsut people easily and I have a mindset of, believe nothing and question everything....until....I get enough evidence that gives me food for thought and channels my thinking into acceptance of whatever is set out.

As simple as that.

 I asked you this before but you denied it as usual. What would I or anyone else stand to gain by lying all the time about everything that you personally don't believe?

I'm not saying you are lying all of the time. I say you are indoctrinated massively and are almost unconditional to mainstream ideals.
Basically follow by en masse peer pressure, because it's much easier to get along.

Quote from: sobchak on March 01, 2021, 03:43:18 AM

Any chance you want to answer this -

Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer.  If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 03:50:06 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 27, 2021, 10:54:46 PM

What happens -

When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated.  Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment.  Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!

Have a think about that one.  How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism? 

I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.

Then give your argument.  What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?

Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table. 

Explain it.

Do you agree that to create an electromagnet you have to create a winding.
Do you accept that the winding will create a sort of vortex. a spiral?

I dont have an electromagnet in front of me.  I have a small permanent magnet on my desk.  Im putting my hand around it, feeling for vortexes or spirals of air.  I put a light piece of paper next to it to see if it was fluttering in some slight unfelt wave of air.

Nothing. 

What is going on with it?  Can you explain a permanent magnet or not? 

It is okay to say you can't if you actually can not.   

Quote from: sobchak on March 01, 2021, 03:38:13 AM

Regardless though, here is my attempt at a simple description of relativity and spacetime using an analogy, others can contribute, correct, or complain as desired  -

You are sitting on a train, looking at a clock while for some reason holding a ruler.  It is completely dark outside, and the train is almost totally silent.  Suddenly, another train goes by in the opposite direction, and you pass by a lit window where someone else is sitting with an identical ruler in their hands next to an identical clock. 

So how fast did the other train appear to YOU to go by?  Well, if you took some high speed photography, and measured the distance the ruler moved in a set amount of time, you could calculate his APPARENT speed to your position.  If your train was going at 100 kph, and the other train was going at 50 kph, it would APPEAR to YOU that the other train went by you at 150 mph.  Same for the guy on the other train, it would appear to HIM that you went by at 150 mph. 

This is the core of relativity, which is a framework for generalizing such observations and making predictions about how events APPEAR in other moving frames of reference.

Ok, so, If I knew my train was travelling at 100 mph and the other train was moving in the same direction at 1 mph, I'd know it was moving at 1mph in the same direction by using this ruler and clock thing and decide that my train is going 99mph?

But the reality is, I'm travelling at 100mph, regardless. and the other train is travelling at 1mph, regardless.


Is this the premise?

In the framework of relativity, ALL motion is relative and there is no absolute reference point to use for motion.  You are moving 100 mph RELATIVE to the ground.  The other train is moving at 1 mph RELATIVE to the ground.  If you are moving in the same direction, you are moving 99 mph RELATIVE to each other.  If you are moving in opposite directions, you are moving at 101 mph RELATIVE to each other.   

Quote from: sobchak

‘Spacetime’ then, is simply this concept; the intertwining of space and time into a single mathematical description that can be used to make quantitative predictions.

So it's all just a concept. It poses to physical reality...right?

Basically there are no facts and yet I'm almost having to accept it even if I do so in a sort of agnostic mindset, rather than just tell it for what I see it as.

Anyone can make this stuff up because there's no proof to it.
That's not any issue too me. Plenty of things d get made up and are/can be intriguing. I'd just rather be told they're not backed up by any real facts and are told as a story of perceivement.

Do you agree?

Anyone can make anything up and those made up ideas can be intriguing, I completely agree.  You for example make up all sorts of stuff, no?   

My question though is always whether what is made up is a good representation of reality of not. 

Do you also agree?

I demand nothing from you. You are free to disengage at any time

What I meant was you are always demanding people explain things to you. yet we get precise little explanations from you about anything.  Any 'explanations' we get from you are so vague that they mean nothing. 

You ask us to explain things to you which some people here do to the best of their knowledge and then you just dismiss it as nonsense..  You can claim anything you like but you cannot qualify any of it with actual evidence. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 04:35:17 AM

Quote from: sobchak on March 01, 2021, 03:43:18 AM

Any chance you want to answer this -

Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer.  If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 03:50:06 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 27, 2021, 10:54:46 PM

What happens -

When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated.  Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment.  Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!

Have a think about that one.  How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism? 

I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.

Then give your argument.  What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?

Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table. 

Explain it.

Do you agree that to create an electromagnet you have to create a winding.
Do you accept that the winding will create a sort of vortex. a spiral?

I dont have an electromagnet in front of me.  I have a small permanent magnet on my desk.  Im putting my hand around it, feeling for vortexes or spirals of air.  I put a light piece of paper next to it to see if it was fluttering in some slight unfelt wave of air.

Nothing. 

What is going on with it?  Can you explain a permanent magnet or not? 

It is okay to say you can't if you actually can not.

It's not what's happening or felt outside, It's what is happening through it to create what is around it.
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?

Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 04:32:36 AM

Quote from: sobchak on March 01, 2021, 03:38:13 AM

Regardless though, here is my attempt at a simple description of relativity and spacetime using an analogy, others can contribute, correct, or complain as desired  -

You are sitting on a train, looking at a clock while for some reason holding a ruler.  It is completely dark outside, and the train is almost totally silent.  Suddenly, another train goes by in the opposite direction, and you pass by a lit window where someone else is sitting with an identical ruler in their hands next to an identical clock. 

So how fast did the other train appear to YOU to go by?  Well, if you took some high speed photography, and measured the distance the ruler moved in a set amount of time, you could calculate his APPARENT speed to your position.  If your train was going at 100 kph, and the other train was going at 50 kph, it would APPEAR to YOU that the other train went by you at 150 mph.  Same for the guy on the other train, it would appear to HIM that you went by at 150 mph. 

This is the core of relativity, which is a framework for generalizing such observations and making predictions about how events APPEAR in other moving frames of reference.

Ok, so, If I knew my train was travelling at 100 mph and the other train was moving in the same direction at 1 mph, I'd know it was moving at 1mph in the same direction by using this ruler and clock thing and decide that my train is going 99mph?

But the reality is, I'm travelling at 100mph, regardless. and the other train is travelling at 1mph, regardless.


Is this the premise?

In the framework of relativity, ALL motion is relative and there is no absolute reference point to use for motion.  You are moving 100 mph RELATIVE to the ground.  The other train is moving at 1 mph RELATIVE to the ground.  If you are moving in the same direction, you are moving 99 mph RELATIVE to each other.  If you are moving in opposite directions, you are moving at 101 mph RELATIVE to each other.   

Yeah, I understand it but it's still not a reality from both parties. It's perceived as making one thing marry up with another which may be massively different.
For instance, the person in the 1mph train may perceive his train to be doing 99mph and he is way way out. There's no reality, only intriguing thoughts, as you say.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 04:32:36 AM

Quote from: sobchak

‘Spacetime’ then, is simply this concept; the intertwining of space and time into a single mathematical description that can be used to make quantitative predictions.

So it's all just a concept. It poses to physical reality...right?

Basically there are no facts and yet I'm almost having to accept it even if I do so in a sort of agnostic mindset, rather than just tell it for what I see it as.

Anyone can make this stuff up because there's no proof to it.
That's not any issue too me. Plenty of things d get made up and are/can be intriguing. I'd just rather be told they're not backed up by any real facts and are told as a story of perceivement.

Do you agree?

Anyone can make anything up and those made up ideas can be intriguing, I completely agree.  You for example make up all sorts of stuff, no?

I do. I have many many thoughts/musings on many things. I don't pass them off as factual unless I can actually physically prove them to be so.
I've never hidden from this and neither should you lot.

   

My question though is always whether what is made up is a good representation of reality of not. 

Do you also agree?

It actually depends on who is looking at it.
Reality can be changed by force of numbers of people who are coaxed into a different thought process. Do you agree?

Quote

I demand nothing from you. You are free to disengage at any time

What I meant was you are always demanding people explain things to you. yet we get precise little explanations from you about anything.

I demand nothing. I ask and leave it up to you people to decide what you want to do.

 Any 'explanations' we get from you are so vague that they mean nothing.

Yep but you have to understand you are having to see it from my point. The onus is on you to ask the questions in a way that can get me to piece answers to you, like throwing pieces of a jigsaw for you to assemble.
The problem is you people start to become bitter and spend an awful lot of time having a dig at anything I say. This just sets you back to square one and your frustration into accelerated mode.
 

You ask us to explain things to you which some people here do to the best of their knowledge and then you just dismiss it as nonsense..

If the explanation means nothing then I will dismiss it. Your mindset should be simplifying it as much as required for a simple person like me to grasp.
Merely telling me it's too complicated for me does not help your case, it just means that I think you have no clue as to the reality of anything you say but are happy to eat anything, unconditionally off the platter that is served to you.

  You can claim anything you like but you cannot qualify any of it with actual evidence.

Correct. If I can't then I can't. This goes massively against you. You have no proof except reliance on storylines and diagrams that are physically showing nothing.

Quote from: sobchak on March 01, 2021, 04:59:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2021, 04:35:17 AM

Quote from: sobchak on March 01, 2021, 03:43:18 AM

Any chance you want to answer this -

Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer.  If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2021, 03:50:06 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 27, 2021, 10:54:46 PM

What happens -

When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated.  Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment.  Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!

Have a think about that one.  How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism? 

I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.

Then give your argument.  What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?

Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table. 

Explain it.

Do you agree that to create an electromagnet you have to create a winding.
Do you accept that the winding will create a sort of vortex. a spiral?

I dont have an electromagnet in front of me.  I have a small permanent magnet on my desk.  Im putting my hand around it, feeling for vortexes or spirals of air.  I put a light piece of paper next to it to see if it was fluttering in some slight unfelt wave of air.

Nothing. 

What is going on with it?  Can you explain a permanent magnet or not? 

It is okay to say you can't if you actually can not.

It's not what's happening or felt outside, It's what is happening through it to create what is around it.

Which is what exactly?  WHAT is happening through it to create WHAT around it?

It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.

So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?

Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?

Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.

You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves.  So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet.  Correct?