I speculate that this forum doe's not know the definition of speculation.

[Klaynos]

Where did I break any rules? My notions all had present information for support, I was using your experiments etc, although definition states I do not need to provide firm evidence to speculate. Changing the English language and definition to suit is misleading .

5. You can't ignore criticism of your idea. When someone points out where a prediction fails to match experiment or some other sticking point, you need to address the issue. This is a two-way discussion, not a lecture. It doesn't matter if your idea appears explain one phenomenon if it fails elsewhere that it's expected to work.

You failed to address the points raised by Mordred. If you have a problem with the moderation action you may report a post and have it reviewed by other moderators.

[studiot]

I was born in England and consequently my first language is English.

 

As such I am quite accustomed to words have several meanings and people restricting these meanings to a particular one or part of one for the purposes of discussion.

 

I am also accustomed to this in the narrower ambit of scientific and technical English, where it is even more common to prevent misinterpretation.

 

So for instance I might start a lecture by defining a differential as a particular system of gearing one finds in many vehicles.

Others might use quite a different definition.

 

Scienceforums is similarly entitled under both the usage practice of common and technical English to make such a restriction, quite apart from the modern belief that business can mangle our once great language as it pleases.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

No. I am saying that you posted a lot of ignorant nonsense. You then resist any attempt to explain your errors and insist that you are right and more than a century of scientists, students and interested people are wrong. How arrogant.

 

This is exactly the same behaviour you showed before. You should learn a little humility and consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

My hastiness to explain is often my ''down fall''. I forget and jump ''miles'' ahead of your present understanding. I understand why at times nobody understands. However I suppose this discussion is pointless too, because I can't even discuss my own thoughts on ''things'' of science.

 

It is not my fault I see the correctness or incorrectness of things.

[Klaynos]

 

 

We're not reopening that thread here.

[DrKrettin]

My hastiness to explain is often my ''down fall''. I forget and jump ''miles'' ahead of your present understanding.

 

Can you actually see how ridiculously arrogant that sounds on a science forum?

[Mordred]

There is a very simple procedure in model building.

 

Person A develops a model, he supplies testable mathematics that provides testable predictions.

 

Person B looks over the model and challenges it. "How do you explain.... etc"

 

Person A tries to solve the problems and concerns person B mentions instead of making random assertions.

 

If your model can't solve the issues raised by person B then we have a problem.

 

That usually indicates an issue overlooked or ignored by person A.

 

In your other thread you were given a chance to prove your model by explaining three real world measurements and well known observer effects.

 

Your response was "thats comparing apples when I'm discussing pears". Yet tbose three observer influences is directly involved and run counter to your model.

 

Had you made an honest effort to solve those concerns your thread would still be open. We have dozens of threads that are obviously wrong, still open because the OP is at least trying to properly prove his model and addresses the concerns of others.

 

Ie he doesn't ignore evidence that counters his idea. Instead he tries to adapt his model to solve those issues

Edited May 3, 2017 by Mordred

[JohnLesser]

We're not reopening that thread here.

I did not ask you or any other mod to re-open that thread. It just means I will not be posting nay more notions here in the future.

 

I have two separate threads running in other science forums, they seem to find good discussion and leave the post running .

 

I have not broke your rules, this tells me you fail to debate my notions and have no answer to them .

[Strange]

It just means I will not be posting nay more notions here in the future.

 

 

Good.

[JohnLesser]

There is a very simple procedure in model building.

 

Person A develops a model, he supplies testable mathematics that provides testable predictions.

 

Person B looks over the model and challenges it. "How do you explain.... etc"

 

Person A tries to solve the problems and concerns person B mentions instead of making random assertions.

 

If your model can't solve the issues raised by person B then we have a problem.

 

That usually indicates an issue overlooked or ignored by person A.

 

In your other thread you were given a chance to prove your model by explaining three real world measurements and well known observer effects.

 

Your response was "thats comparing apples when I'm discussing pears". Yet tbose three observer influences is directly involved and run counter to your model.

Perhaps I did not quite understand your question or ''see' how it was related, but if you understood what I said you would know why I deem myself to be correct. I never said there was not a time dilation, I totally agreed there was, however like normal in a science forum the history of the thread is ignored.

[Strange]

It is not my fault I see the correctness or incorrectness of things.

 

 

Except you can't.

 

You just think you can. The combination of ignorance and arrogance leads to self-delusion.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

Good.

You might say good now, it is not my loss, I bring a bit of fun to science with some 'wacked' out speculations, but also some rather precise speculations.

 

 

Would you want me to post when elsewhere I prove myself correct?

[Mordred]

I was pretty specific. You will not have a temperature or energy change due to relativistic observer effects without length contraction. I specifically stated time dilation alone cannot account for how redshift works. (change in wavelength).

 

Nor would you have a curved light path around a gravitational body without length contraction. (curved spacetime)

Edited May 3, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

Would you want me to post when elsewhere I prove myself correct?

 

 

As that is never going to be happen, I am quite happy for you to post anywhere else but here.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

Except you can't.

 

You just think you can. The combination of ignorance and arrogance leads to self-delusion.

And here we go with dunning and krugger etc, I have heard that so many times as a poor excuse for not being able to answer the posters questions/speculations.

 

You fail to answer because it shows the relative truth, not because you think it is wrong. Most of you probably didn't even read it or skipped posts, just picking up bits of information, not serious enough about science to actually care.

 

 

As that is never going to be happen, I am quite happy for you to post anywhere else but here.

News for you, it will happen, when forums are silenced for answers a person knows they are correct. Regardless what you think I will succeed in getting a single notion in Wiki if not multiple notions.

 

I still have time on my side in my early 40's

[Mordred]

Good luck, I always find it amazing how many people try to prove relativity wrong but have absolutely no clue why relativity works. Let alone properly understand how it works. You provided the perfect example. Ignoring length contraction despite being told of three specific real world pieces of evidence showing length contraction.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Mordred

[JohnLesser]

 

In which post you provided evidence.. ?

Most of them, most of what I said, I adding nothing new from myself really, I only discussed mainstream. It is not my fault if nobody can ''see'' what I was on about.

Good luck, I always find it amazing how many people try to prove relativity wrong but have absolutely no clue why relativity works. Let alone properly understand how it works. You provided the perfect example. Ignoring length contraction.

I did not ignore length contraction at all, I did discuss this if you read the thread.

[Strange]

And here we go with dunning and krugger etc, I have heard that so many times

 

 

I wonder why ...

 

 

You fail to answer because it shows the relative truth, not because you think it is wrong. Most of you probably didn't even read it or skipped posts, just picking up bits of information, not serious enough about science to actually care.

 

People spent time trying to explain your errors (in this and your previous threads) but you are so arrogant, you refuse to listen.

 

 

 

I still have time on my side in my early 40's

 

You still have time to study and learn some science, instead of making things up.

[JohnLesser]

I was pretty specific. You will not have a temperature or energy change due to relativistic observer effects without length contraction. I specifically stated time dilation alone cannot account for how redshift works. (change in wavelength).

 

Nor would you have a curved light path around a gravitational body without length contraction. (curved spacetime)

I still do not understand why you relating this to a speculation about misinterpretation, I have not argued what you observe does not happen, I said it did, I was arguing about our interpretation of time compared to simultaneity on another planet.

 

So I still do not understand what you want me to explain and why?

[cladking]

I was born in England and consequently my first language is English.

 

As such I am quite accustomed to words have several meanings and people restricting these meanings to a particular one or part of one for the purposes of discussion.

 

I am also accustomed to this in the narrower ambit of scientific and technical English, where it is even more common to prevent misinterpretation.

 

So for instance I might start a lecture by defining a differential as a particular system of gearing one finds in many vehicles.

Others might use quite a different definition.

 

Scienceforums is similarly entitled under both the usage practice of common and technical English to make such a restriction, quite apart from the modern belief that business can mangle our once great language as it pleases.

 

I certainly agree with you.

 

However, evidence for nontraditional theories/ hypotheses/ speculations (and even axioms) tend to get brushed aside in favor of traditional interpretations. New speculations deserve to be taken at face value yet rarely are.

[DrKrettin]

And here we go with dunning and krugger etc,

 

 

I still have time on my side in my early 40's

 

Good - you still have time to improve your spelling and grammar. My guess is that you won't.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

I wonder why ...

 

 

People spent time trying to explain your errors (in this and your previous threads) but you are so arrogant, you refuse to listen.

 

 

You still have time to study and learn some science, instead of making things up.

I have spent several years learning ''your'' science, I know more than the average person, I understand relativity and it is quite clear to me that most of the world doe's not.

They can't even get the definition of speculation correct let alone define time correctly.

[Mordred]

I still do not understand why you relating this to a speculation about misinterpretation, I have not argued what you observe does not happen, I said it did, I was arguing about our interpretation of time compared to simultaneity on another planet.

 

So I still do not understand what you want me to explain and why?

If you ran the calcs for Both length contraction and time dilation you will find c is invariant to all observers.

 

You tried to declare c as variant without using all the required equations that show it is invariant. The forum correctly pointed out this error and you stubbornly argued with them.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

I have spent several years learning ''your'' science, I know more than the average person, I understand relativity

 

 

There is zero evidence for that.

[JohnLesser]

There is a very simple procedure in model building.

 

Person A develops a model, he supplies testable mathematics that provides testable predictions.

 

Person B looks over the model and challenges it. "How do you explain.... etc"

 

Person A tries to solve the problems and concerns person B mentions instead of making random assertions.

 

If your model can't solve the issues raised by person B then we have a problem.

 

That usually indicates an issue overlooked or ignored by person A.

 

In your other thread you were given a chance to prove your model by explaining three real world measurements and well known observer effects.

 

Your response was "thats comparing apples when I'm discussing pears". Yet tbose three observer influences is directly involved and run counter to your model.

 

Had you made an honest effort to solve those concerns your thread would still be open. We have dozens of threads that are obviously wrong, still open because the OP is at least trying to properly prove his model and addresses the concerns of others.

 

Ie he doesn't ignore evidence that counters his idea. Instead he tries to adapt his model to solve those issues

I am sorry moderator but you can't call a section speculations then tel people they have to provide a precise model and theory at that stage of discussion .

I look for relative agreement before I continue something. My questions were ignored per normal, questions that the yes answers too, agree with me.

What is the point of providing an axiom premise which took me ages to devise, if the premise is ignored?

 

My premise for argument should of allowed the thread to stay open, a person only needs to understand the premise to discuss it.

Edited May 3, 2017 by JohnLesser

[Phi for All]

I am sorry moderator but you can't call a section speculations then tel people they have to provide a precise model and theory at that stage of discussion .

 

!

Moderator Note

Well yes, we can. And do.

 

There are plenty of places for wild west, anything goes, who-cares-if-I'm-just-guessing speculation on the internet. We invite you to search them out and find your happiness there.

 

Our Speculations section will remain as is.