mooeypoo

You're just not READING what we're SAYING. Every time - again and again - we tell you that your assumptions are wrong. We explain what the theory says and where to get more information about it. You keep repeating the same mantra again and again. and again. and again. The theory of relativity is counter intuitive. No doubt about that. The fact you don't understand it (and you obviously not, as we pointed out, and explained despite your insistence to ignore us) does not mean it's false. Either talk science, or stop wasting this forum's precious database allocation. You're IGNORANT OF THE THEORY. You are claiming the ball is rectangular when it is proven to be spherical. How do you argue reality with someone who denies it? How do you debate reality with someone who refuses to learn bout it at all? Stop convincing us that you're ignorant of facts, and start fixing the situation and read and learn about the theory that multiple people in MANY YEARS proven it right. Over and over again. And over again. And over again. And again. and again. and again. Your insistence to deny facts is just silly. Seriously. Now please don't tell me a second is a second is a second. ~moo

You're doing it again, the sun is blue. I think you should read and abide by DH's suggestion. Let me remind you: Ignoring facts don't make the facts go away. It just presents you as ignorant of the facts. ~moo

Alright, fine, then by that definition, a "real second" only exists in your time reference.

Duration is not a phenomenon, it's a definition of the measurement of the phenomenon. Time "movement" "occures" whether you measure it or not. Duration cannot "occur". It's not a phenomena. Duration is the result of the measurement between time intervals. ~moo

Read up. We proved your assumptions, method, and claims WRONG. That proves the math is based on flawed logic, and hence is wrong as well. In essence, we already showed why the numbers are wrong. The color blue, like the color of the forum's symbol. Like the color of the sky, only a bit darker. Visibly blue and ONLY blue, hence not just 'containing' blue, just blue. I claim that when you look at the sun you see it blue. when you take a picture of the sun through a satellite in High Definition, it is blue, only blue, and nothing but blue. No other color in it. Prove me wrong.

Do you agree the sun is blue? Prove me wrong!

Since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you, not on us. The theory of relativity is working and has been proven to predict reality correctly for 50+ years. The numbers you gave weren't the problem, it's the assumptions you make that are problematic. We related to the problems (which invalidate the math..) and you seem to ignore it. We explained what relativity TRULY means, and you insist on presenting it another way (that it's NOT). What else do you need, really? Read the TRUE depiction of Relativity, and you will see that the numerical values are not the problem here. It's your claims. ~moo

You're ignoring factual data and insist it's not factual. I don't quite understand how we can debate science this way. Look at the responses you got from all of us (Klaynos lately more than others) and then at your own responses. You're repeating the mantra of "but its wrong" without giving proof. You're arguing facts. You're also ignoring OUR insistence that you don't know the theor(ies) of relativity. We have related specifically to your claims, you just don't seem to listen. ~moo

This is silly. You chose to come to this scientific forum for a reason. Now, you insist on ignoring science so that you can claim you are right, when reality proves you wrong. We're not even debating here, we're repeating ourselves, and you repeat your stomping-the-ground "I don't care about reality, I'm right!" mantra. Motor Daddy - reality disagrees with you. In order to prove what you're saying, you need to prove how your claim FITS reality. It doesn't so far. Insisting a theory is wrong because you're uncomfortable with it is unscientific. And you insist on not studying the theory you're critiquing. That's just silly. Let me make an analogy to your argument, Motor Daddy, so you might see how silly this argument is: I claim gravity is a fantastical claim by an old man who was hit on the head by an overly heavy apple. You give me proof: You take a ball, and drop it from 20 feet. The ball drops at constant acceleration. You measure the acceleration and it fits the prediction of Newton's theory of gravity to the letter. I claim the ball is wrong. I show you that if I jump from a plane at 4000 feet hight, I accelerate up to a certain speed (and stop accelerating). Ha, I say. Gravity is wrong. You then show me that the theory of gravity, along with proven observational facts and mathematical corroboration shows the concept of "Terminal Velocity", dependant on my mass, speed, and whatever else. You also point out that at some point I open up a shoot. I am also affected by the friction of the air. I tell you that you're wrong. I demand you explain, then, how come I didn't accelerate forever. You point out you already told me. I tell you that you're wrong. And on we go. Forever. A silly argument. Now take a look at what you're saying throughout the 20+ posts in this thread and the other posts in the other thread. Stop telling us facts are wrong and start reading about the FACTUAL EVIDENCE and explanations of the VERY WELL SUPPORTED theory you keep arguing against without any proof of its flawlessness. At the very least, refine your arguments. They're becoming repetitive, which shows that you - above making strawman arguments because you refuse to learn what the theory REALLY says and insist on claiming what you THINK it says - also ignore what we explain. That's just rude. It's also called trolling. It's also against the rules of the forum. You chose to post here and debate with us, remember? Follow the rules, own up to the responsibility to PROVE and SUPPORT your claims. Or stop wasting our time. It might be relative, but it's still ticking. ~moo

How 'bout this - instead of us arguing silliness, how 'bout you PROVE what you say is right and what 100 years of physics theories and proofs are wrong. After all, we are in a SCIENTIFIC forum, not a fantasy stomp-your-feet-on-the-ground sandbox. For your claims to make any sort of sense, you need to base them on proven observations, and then explain how they fit the experiments that seem to refute them. Until you do that, you're just churning water in a very unscientific way in a scientific forum you chose to post in. Own up to your responsibility and prove your statements. We do, even though you try to ignore them. Yes. There are, but we'll ignore them. (gravity, anyone?) No. The clock "comes back" and its every second is the same second as the other clock. The problem is that when the stationary clock shows 1 second, then 2 then 3 in equal intervals, the accelerated clock shows 3 and the 4 and then 5 (respectively) in the SAME intervals. The measurement of time is the same for both clocks when they're both stationary, because they're both back in the same reference. The only time the measurement of that second is wrong is when they are not in the same reference frame -- hence, one is accelerated. The difference is the INTERVAL of the seconds in both reference frames. You really do need to read a bit about relativity. your presentation of it is wrong, which makes your faulty conclusions unsurprising. The official universal time on EARTH while NOT MOVING is standard. Read relativity. I suggest you read a bit about GPS satellites too, since the wouldn't be able to EXIST and FUNCTION without relying on the theory of relativity. You're ignoring facts. Nice for you. And yet.. unrealistic, a bit, wouldn't you say? 90 MPH means 90 MPH. Yep. Just for me (stationary) the hour will SEEM SHORTER than you the accelerating. We will still both experience 90MPH, and in our own frame of reference we wouldn't feel the difference. But you looking at me, will see me slower. Me looking at you will see you faster. Proven. PROVEN. Stop arguing factual data. Start reading about the theory you seem to claim is false. You seem to misrepresent it. That's called Strawman, and while it's a fun fallacy to do (hey, it gets you right every time!) it's also fallacious, and hence non scientific. ~moo

No, we invented the TERMS and THEORIES to explain what we see. That includes explanation of how times work, and the definition for it. Yes, but the way we think of it, relate to it and explain it depends on our definition. That's why old/ancient definitions are different (and sometimes wrong) than current ones. Who do you think defined it? I personally go by meters and kilometers. Those are units of distance too... which we invented. So is "Ama" which is a biblical unit of measurement. A very inaccurate one at that, which is why it was replaced. See what I'm saying? Well, since your suggestion is contradicted by reality (read the above posts and the posts in the other thread), I would say that the absurd part is not in the current theory. Repeating a false claim does not make it true. We explained this point three times already, and gave examples from successful experiments that proved this point. Time is observed differently from different speeds. Same as speed is observed differently from different relative speeds. It's proven. It's not just hypothetical. Arguing against proven, observed, supported, experimentally supported facts is not going to change the fact that it is proven. What does that have to do with speed or time? Nothing is being added from nothing... nothing as anything to do with nothing... Okay, here's the deal: I'm on a spaceship, you're on the ground. We both have cameras filming us, and a screen that shows each-other's feeds. I see your film, you see mine. I hit the gas and go extremely fast. I accelerate so fast, that I reach speeds that are close to the speed of light. Through my video screen, I see you moving VERRRRYYY VVVEEERRRYYY fast. You see me going slowmotion. I don't feel as if I am slow motion, and you don't "feel" like you're fast motion. I see you fast, you see me slow. That's time dilation. That's reference frame. That's also proven (see atomic-clock experiment we discussed earlier). If time has no frame of reference, you will have a lot of trouble explaining what happened in that experiment. But they were, and they did! Read a bit about atomic clocks. It's not your 'usual' clock. It's accurate by atomic reactions. They don't "go bad". Or malfunction. That's why they were used. A second is a second is a second is a second. Until you speed up, in which case a second is a longer second. Proven. The distance of mars is not the same as time/space dilation. Mars also changes its distance from us because both the earth and mars move in circles. If both will be on the same "side" of the sun, they're both CLOSER than if they're on opposite sides. Mars orbits the sun in a(lmost a) circle. So is the earth. but earht's "circle" is smaller. So the earth and mars are, many times, on different distances. Don't mix up claims. We don't need to measure such small speeds to state that time CHANGES with SPEED. Stop ignoring facts to suit your own purpose. The experiments (MANY! not one!) are factual. They happened. For real. In reality. And we had to explain what happend-- lo and behold, Relativity predicts reality to the letter. Ignoring facts because you don't like their implications is not science, it's fantasy. ~moo

But the length of the rotations varies - the "time" it takes to complete a rotation. That's what dilation of time DOES.

Definitions created by humans, to explain reality from their own point of reference. We invented those terms, Motor Daddy. From our own point of reference, obviously, because that's what we know. That's what we used to know until Einstein's theory. His theory was, at first, treated as bullshit -- until his predictions came true, and the math checked out. Hence, until it was obvious it explains reality better than what was the current theories. Add 1 or subtract 1? Uhh.. I don't understand the question.. 1 what? second? mile? person? steps? ... a number is meaningless without a unit attached to it, unless you're talking about pure mathematical equations, in which case you just need +1 or -1 and you're done. The fact that time dilates in relation to speed is proven. Two perfectly synchronized atomic clocks were produced - one put on a fast moving plane, another left on the ground. After a while of movement from the plane, the two clocks were not synchronized anymore. Since atomic clocks are perfectly accurate, that means that time dilates. It's proven. It's a fact. The explanations may vary in the future as we find more and more information about our reality and surroundings, but the odds that thy will be dramatically different than the current one (hence, that the theories will state that there's no dilation of time, or no other points of reference for time) are slim to none. Because of the observed facts. The fact you don't understand the theory does not make the theory false. ~moo

That doesn't follow ovservations. How do you explain nebulae giving "birth" to stars *and* planets? Also, a star's core gets hotter when it's closer to its death - and yet the planets are the same approximate age of the sun (a *bit* "younger"). Your theory is inconsistent with that fact as well. You challenge the existing theories but seem to not know them at all. The fact you don't understand the explanation of how gas giants are formed doesn't mean the explanation is lacking. It just means you don't understand it. Read a bit about logical fallacies. Good luck, ~moo

It's all about the phrasing..

See what happens when I'm not there..?

... right. And this was a thread full of claims. All we need is your proof and something to convince us that your claims have any basis in (oh..) reality. We need proof, New Science. Not just opinionated claims.

Physics Experts, chip in here. I'm sure their explanations of the known facts about the expansion of the universe will be better than mine. We do have explanations for this, I will leave it to the Physics experts to show you. I, however, am going to point out why your logic is fallacious. You have a few logical fallacies in your assumptions here: Clarification: The quotes below are explanations for the fallacies, taken from The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Fallacy page. You can also find these fallacies in other pages. I didn't have the patience or the desire to start quoting EACH and EVERY time your claims go fallacious. I will, however, point it out in the future and I suggest everyone do that too. If nothing else, it's great practice. Argument from personal incredulity seems to be the biggest one: But you also seem to think that "Ad Ignorantiam" (Appeal to Ignorance) is a valid claim, when it's not. Here's what the fallacy mean: You have a big tendency to fall into a false dichotomy, where you start saying something isn't possible, therefore----extreme solution must be true. The world is not made out of 2 options. Even if redshift isn't possible (ahem), that doesn't mean your option is the obvious conclusion. Your Ad Hominems are sometimes replaced by Tu Quoque fallacy (I love that one, it has a cool name. But it's still an argument-wrecker): Regardless of the answers that will be supplied, logical fallacies are still illogical. Asking a question based on a logical fallacy sets up the question (and potential answer) to be fallacious as well. So if you want us to treat your ideas seriously, please try to avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks. Last point: If your data is supported on anything (math or other work) you need to show it. We're not just taking your word for it. We're not taking anyone's word for anything, actually, which is why we debate science and not dogma. You need to SHOW US what you've done and how you've reached your conclusion, not expect us to start researching the background to every claim. If you used math, show it. If you haven't used math and instead you decided to base your conclusion on someone else's study, you need to cite it. It's called plagiarism when you don't. It's illegal, as well as against the forum's rules. I suggest you read the rules. ...Whoa! deja vu anyone?... ~moo

The only big problem with this whole thing is that blike probably needs this money for server upkeep... <sigh> damn scientologists. We should also think of more ways to earn the upkeep of the server, upgrades, etc.. Google ads pays by click, I think, so swansont is right: we should LOOK for these annoying organizations and click on them, so at least if they pay, they pay us. ~moo

Hey guys, After a VERY frustrating semester (work was tough, professor wasn't very helpful, and very big workload), I got a B+ in my math course. I don't like it at all, but it's better than failing, so I'm good. I have the exam sheet still, and I would REALLY want to know where I screwed up. I have scribbled the answered that I put up in the actual exam on the edges of the questions, and I'm probably going to post lots of mistakes (it was stressing ) -- but I would like to know the answers. I know it's not something we usually do here, solve questions, usually we ask to give the WAY -- well, feel free to give me a way too. I am going to post the questions and my scribbled solution. I can't remember what way I used, but I'll try. If my answer's wrong, please show me the right way to do it... it's too late to change my exam obviously - it's only for my own perverted self-examination needs... Thanks in advance --- Part I 1. (a) Find an equation for the tangent plane to the surface S given by [math]z=8-x^2-3x^2[/math] at the point (2,1,1) My answer: z-1=-4(x-2)-6(y-1) (b) The plane x=2 intersects the surface S in a curve. Find a unit vector tangent to this curve at the point (2,1,1). I think I overdid my divisions here.. anyways, my answer: [math]u=(\frac{2}{\sqrt{40}}, \frac{-6}{\sqrt{40}})[/math] 2. Consider the line: [math]r(t) = (4+2t)i + (2-t)j +(3-t)k[/math] (a) Find the intersection point of that line with the plane z=4+x+3y or show that they do not intersect. I don't have my answer written here and I don't remember off the top of my head what I wrote, but the way I remember it, I rewrote the line equation to x=4+2t, y=2-t, z=3-t and then plugged these values into the plane equation to see that it doesn't solve (hence, there are no intersecting lines). Is that right? (b) Find an equation for the plane which contains that line and is perpendicular to the plane z=4+x+3y. My answer: x=4+4t y=2+t z=3+7t And so the n (normal vector) = n x v = (4,1,7) (v is the line vector, n is the normal vector to the plane) 3. Evaluate: [math]\int\int_{T}(x)dA[/math] where T is the triangle with vertices at the origin, (1,1) and (2,0). My answer: [math]\int^{1}_{0}\int^{2-y}_{y}(x)dxdy = 1[/math] 4. Let [math]f(x,y)=xy^2-2x^2[/math] (a) Find the directional derivative of f at the point (2,-1) in the direction of v=3i-4j My Answer: [math]u\nabla f=16/5[/math] (b) Give a unit vector in the direction of maximum decrease of f(x,y) at (2,-1) I was quite proud of myself of noticing it said maximum DEcrease (which is actually the "minimum" increase.. ha. But I'm not sure I got the answer right My answer: [math](\frac{7}{\sqrt{65}},\frac{4}{\sqrt{65}})[/math] 5. For each of the following series, state whether the series is absolutely convergent, conditionally convergent, or divergent. Credit will not be given unless the reasons for your conclusions are given. (Note: I can't stand series.. I get confused. It probably shows) (a) [math]\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\frac{(-1)^n}{2n+3}[/math] Conditionally convergent. (b) [math]\sum^{\infty}_{n=2}\frac{(-1)^n}{\sqrt{n}ln(n)}[/math] Divergent. © [math]\sum^{\infty}_{n=2}\frac{(2n-5)}{n^3-4n+3}[/math] Absolutely convergent. 6. Find the interval of convergence for the power series [math]\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\frac{(2x-5)^n}{n+1}[/math] (remember to check the endpoints) My Answer: [2,3) 7. Evaluate the triple integral [math]\int\int\int_{G}ZdV[/math] where G is the region between the spheres x^2+y^2+z^2=1 and x^2+y^2+z^2=4 in the first octant. I don't have a written answer to this one, don't remember what I wrote eventually, but I overdid this one completely.. I got really confused. I have semi-answer (beginning of my methods): [math]\int^{\pi/2}_{0}\int^{2}_{1}\int^{\sqrt{4-r^2}}_{\sqrt{1-r^2}}zr dzdrd\theta[/math] Part II (Answered 3 of 5 questions): 8. Find and classify the critical points of [math]f(x,y)=xy^2+8x^2+y^2[/math] My answer: (-1,4) and (-1,-4) --> Saddle points. (0,0) --> Minimum point. 10. Sketch the region of integration, change the order of integration and evaluate: [math]\int^{9}_{0}\int^{\sqrt{x}}_{x/3}2x dydx[/math] My Answer (minus the sketch): [math]\int^{3}_{0}\int^{y^2}_{3y}2x dxdy[/math] 12. For each of the following, find the limit or show that the limit does not exist: (a) [math]\lim_{x,y \to 0,0}\frac{x^2+xy+y^2}{x^2+y^2}[/math] My answer: path 1 --> x=0 path 2 --> y=0 Both limits are different ==> Limit does not exist. (b) [math]\lim_{x,y \to 0,0}\frac{x^4-y^4}{x^2+y^2}[/math] My answer: The limit DOES exist: [math]\lim_{x,y \to 0,0}\frac{(x^2-y^2)(x^2+y^2)}{x^2+y^2}[/math] [math]= \lim_{x,y \to 0,0}(x^2+y^2)=0[/math] -- That's it. I will really appreciate any help in this. I'm curious to know what I got right and what I got wrong, and from the things I got wrong - how to do better...? Unfortunately, we don't have answersheets for finals :\ Thanks in advance! ~moo

roflmao, I love you guys

I ... have one thing to say about this one: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! AAAAAA!!!

Yo, guys, I am all ready to go to TAM6, and I even printed out a Scienceforums.net TSHIRT! For those of you who can't read it: FRONT: http://www.scienceforums.net Discuss Science and Pseudoscience <SYMBOL>______________PLAY BOTH _________________________SIDES --- Back: SFN Symbol http://www.scienceofurms.net -------- w00t Whatch'a think?