Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
From physics' perspective, a fourth (at least) is necessary: respect from peers, a better working model, and demonstration accepted by all physicists. Dr Tyson was correct, because relativity works: it is the prevailing and only accepted model at this time. Bryant hasn't really shattered any myth nor does he have the platform to date to replace it with 'modern physics' or whatever he wants to replace it with. 3.14 is fine for pi AND we already know we can keep going if we need to get further. In a nutshell, simply saying '3.14' isn't good enough, isn't good enough. With only 1k views and no physicist or other scientists chiming in (not even getting their attention o_O , it'll be a long time for entering serious physics discussions at this point.
:yawn:

When you have some rational objections, let us know.
 

Lon

Well-known member
:yawn:

When you have some rational objections, let us know.
The Pharisees plugged their ears and yelled at the top of their lungs when they killed Stephen: Same tack. Playing 'incredulous' gets you nothing, Stripe. It is a losing argument. Bryant barely has more than a thousand hits! That's incredulous. Sorry, true. Quit running to obscure ideas to shore up your pet ideas. Looking at Bryant's 3 for challenging Einstein: I had to ask why he thought those were substantial. Einstein's theory of relativity (how gravity, time, and energy work together) is already challenged by black hole findings. It doesn't eliminate nor 'challenge' Einstein's postulations. What it does is shows that Relativity principles don't apply to 'everything.' Einstein would have been proud because it both shores up his own theory (it is about relative differences after all) and would have given him room to keep working on formulas. Bryant is a computer science major and doesn't have the platform to challenge much (especially when he only has 1000+ hits and barely 2 responses from nonscientists on all 6 of his webcasts, ESPECIALLY), nor does finding that relativity doesn't always apply, crush it. He and you will have to try again.
It's relevant to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Such a claim should be met with a healthy dose of scepticism, to say the least. It's not as if hardly anyone has bothered to look at Einstein's work before.


I have made no such assertion! It is Mr. Bryant who is making the claims, not me. It is Mr. Bryant's burden to demonstrate the error that he claims exists. All I've done is to refute Bryant's argumennt is to read Einstein's own words and made the wild assumption that he meant what he said.
🆙 Exactly
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There's a very straightforward case that has been presented to you:

1. Relative motion has been modeled using classical mechanics.

2. Observations showed that those formulas did not hold up in extreme cases.

3. Einstein introduced a correction that he called relativity, which requires the assumption of the constancy of lightspeed.

4. A different way to correct for the discrepancy has been presented that does not require Einstein's assumption and gives results that are at least as reliable.

You're not obliged to simply accept what I say without question, but neither is anything you have said a rational response.

You insist that the decades that have passed since relativity was proposed mean something.

They don't.

You declare that the success of applying relativity's formulas means something.

It doesn't.

You point to people who agree with you as if their qualifications should be a reason to stop believing as I do.

All of these are the insignificant appeals to the irrational that are rightly laughed at.

So, no, "ditto" doesn't work. What you need is a sensible line of reasoning.
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
You're not obliged to simply accept what I say without question, but neither is anything you have said a rational response.
Incorrect.
You insist that the decades that have passed since relativity was proposed mean something.

They don't.
Because you say so?
You declare that the success of applying relativity's formulas means something.

It doesn't.
Because you say so?
You point to people who agree with you as if their qualifications should be a reason to stop believing as I do.
Sure, many of them have PhDs
All of these are the insignificant appeals to the irrational that are rightly laughed at.
Um, no. You are simply posturing to try and win something. Won't work. Keep trying.
So, no, "ditto" doesn't work. What you need is a sensible line of reasoning.
Ditto. I absolutely disagree. I've posted more links, you barely touched them but countered with a guy (1 guy) who has a grand total of 1k hits for an audience??? Even a fellow Open Theist questions such:
It's relevant to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Such a claim should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism, to say the least. It's not as if hardly anyone has bothered to look at Einstein's work before.


I have made no such assertion! It is Mr. Bryant who is making the claims, not me. It is Mr. Bryant's burden to demonstrate the error that he claims exists. All I've done is to refute Bryant's argument is to read Einstein's own words and made the wild assumption that[Albert Einstein) meant what he said.
:doh:
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Incorrect.

You'll need to put forward something more than that.

Because you say so?

Because the time between proposition A and proposition B has no impact on the veracity of either.

Because you say so?

Because we can derive the exact same formula, E=mc2, from both propositions.

Applying the same formula derived from competing theories does not provide any evidence that one has primacy.

I've explained this to you several times.

Sure, many of them have PhDs

This is a logical fallacy.

It's called the appeal to authority.

It has no place in rational discourse.

When you have something of value to contribute, let us know.

Um, no. You are simply posturing to try and win something.

Nope.

I've spent pages explaining the challenge to relativity theory to you.

You have shown no signs that you've comprehended any of it.

Do you understand the implications of the fact that E=mc2 can be derived both from relativity and its challenger?

I absolutely disagree. I've posted more links, you barely touched them but countered with a guy (1 guy) who has a grand total of 1k hits for an audience???

Nope. I explained clearly my problem with your links. They simply assert the primacy of relativity.

You cannot engage sensibly with an idea by arguing that only your idea is allowed a seat at the table.

Even a fellow Open Theist questions such:

And you conclude with another logical fallacy. Are you going for the whole list?
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
You'll need to put forward something more than that.



Because the time between proposition A and proposition B has no impact on the veracity of either.



Because we can derive the exact same formula, E=mc2, from both propositions.

Applying the same formula derived from competing theories does not provide any evidence that one has primacy.

I've explained this to you several times.



This is a logical fallacy.

It's called the appeal to authority.

It has no place in rational discourse.

When you have something of value to contribute, let us know.



Nope.

I've spent pages explaining the challenge to relativity theory to you.

You have shown no signs that you've comprehended any of it.

Do you understand the implications of the fact that E=mc2 can be derived both from relativity and its challenger?



Nope. I explained clearly my problem with your links. They simply assert the primacy of relativity.

You cannot engage sensibly with an idea by arguing that only your idea is allowed a seat at the table.



And you conclude with another logical fallacy. Are you going for the whole list?
No, just asking YOU to pay attention as well. As long as you think you can't learn from another, er, there is nothing to see or learn here. I've been challenging and cogent enough, despite your protests to date. PhD's have degrees in this. You? Not sure, but appealing to others where it isn't my degree? Naw, you simply have to recognize I have to place other's, with the where-with-all, into the conversation. Pulling from a guy who gets 2 hits!??? :noway: It just isn't the same as posting from men who get 'thousands' Stripe. You REALLY can't see that? That you posted a guy to shore yourself up, that had literally 'hundreds' of agreement and audience? 🤔 Really?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, just asking YOU to pay attention as well. As long as you think you can't learn from another, er, there is nothing to see or learn here. I've been challenging and cogent enough, despite your protests to date. PhD's have degrees in this. You? Not sure, but appealing to others where it isn't my degree? Naw, you simply have to recognize I have to place other's, with the where-with-all, into the conversation. Pulling from a guy who gets 2 hits!??? :noway: It just isn't the same as posting from men who get 'thousands' Stripe. You REALLY can't see that? That you posted a guy to shore yourself up, that had literally 'hundreds' of agreement and audience? 🤔 Really?


When you stop counting adherents to ideas, you might be able to rationally assess the ideas.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Do you understand the implications of the fact that E=mc2 can be derived both from relativity and Modern Mechanics?
 

Lon

Well-known member
Do you understand the implications of the fact that E=mc2 can be derived both from relativity and Modern Mechanics?
Not particularly, from this explanation:
2189.jpg
This physicist discusses it more intelligibly than I've seen others and he has a lot of basic primers that are akin to my grasp (it is how I understand and grasp physics).
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Not particularly.
Then let me explain it to you again, using your sources again:


Nuclear weapons are built on one principle; that mass can be turned into energy, and the equation that exactly predicts that conversion is E=mc2. So what has that to do with Special Relativity? The answer is that E=mc2 is derived directly from Special Relativity. If relativity is wrong, then nuclear weapons simply wouldn't work.



Unfortunately for this narrative, E=mc2 can also be derived directly from Modern Mechanics. This makes the assertion of your source — if relativity is wrong, nuclear weapons would not work — obviously incorrect.

He even says:


Other models of relativity that contain E = mc2 exist, but here we are concerned with the standard model as proposed by Einstein.



So it is clear that he is simply asserting the primacy of his preferred theory and allowing no other idea a seat at the table.


Any theory or point of view that opposes Special Relativity must explain where E=mc2 comes from if not relativity.



Easy. It's the first term of a Taylor series used to calculate results of the formula you posted:
2189.jpg
.
 
Last edited:
Top