Greetings all, an intro and a question ... .

[Ben Robberecht]

Hello:

I am "No-One" (named Ben, the "no-one is based on the idea that in the whole of time, 100 years is nothing. We are nothing, but what we leave for the future generations.), and "I am not me (more philosophy: One ends different than when one is born, evolved through the things the person experienced).
I am 52 years young, Belgian, married now 30 years with my first and only love that I met at age 23, resulting in 4 daughters and a son (in that order).

Blessed with severe Asperger's and severe ADHD, my life always evolved around the logical and rational, and I live to prevent issues by fixing these before these happen.
Something I am decently skilled in, meantime, having learned how to see issues coming to be.
Not always successful, of course, too many variables to take into account, and the human nature:
HIGHLY unpredictable.

Due to my Asperger's, I am quite philosophical.
Now, the general masses do not like people like me:
I question everything.
Including myself (I am my own worst critic), up to even my own questions.
This means ... I question science as well in many a regard (which is one of the things I am quite disliked for):
I found errors (and hardcore holding onto these) in science, but I can't turn anywhere with these.

Brings me to my question:
I have a "few" things I would like to address.
Not through equations, nor Mathematica, but simple, straightforward English.

Reasoning:
For one:
What is an equation?
It's no more than an IDEA put into a scientific mathematical language, right?
But what if the idea is incorrect?
Example:
A man falls from a building.
But NOT according to Einstein:
"It is the Earth falling to the man" (The Happiest Thought).
Wait, WHAT?
Uhm, let us please keep it to the man dropping, I mean, sure, you can state that the planet is racing to the man, if it is seen through that man's eyes, but for the rest at ground floor, it's likely not the planet speeding to the fella, but the fella to the planet, or am I wrong?
Surely, I can make this into equation, but for crying out loud, to what point?
I mean, to the rest of us, and especially at the other side of the planet:
If it was the planet speeding up to the man, those on the side of the planet would end up soup (so to speak) from the sudden velocity acceleration while those on the other side of the planet "would fall off" due to that very same acceleration, making them in fact "weightless" (see the weightless trainings on an aircraft, same thing).
But, Einstein being Einstein, he said basically:
It's just relative.
Or:
Even relativity ... is relative.

Secondly:
In plain, simple English all is understood, truth is seen, and lie (read: error, red) faster discovered.
Right?
If I were to paste the whole law about only murder here, it would be nigh a book, that only few really understand, no?
But if I were to write "Thou shalt not kill", everyone would get it?
No?  

Thirdly:
A true scientist has to keep an open mind, right?
Each time DeGrassi said, that science proved God does not exist, he was being Anti-Science, or ... a quack, about this topic, abusing science to promote a bias (what i totally despise).
I mean:
The Empirical State of God ... is a Quantum (or Schrödinger) state:
God IS, God ISN'T, and all in-between, at the very same moment.
"Nought, One, and all in-between."
Since God is, in science, neither proven, nor disproven.
I am therefore a Religious Atheist:
I equally so believe in God(s), as I absolutely do not, and all variations in-between.

And no, I am factually in that mental state, about this specific topic out of many topics.
I managed to teach myself to "become Quantum" (sounds silly, I know), and thus accept "both and all in-between states" of God as equally true and untrue.
I do not prefer God to be, and equally so I do not prefer God NOT to be.
For this is the Empirical State of God.
Until we can open that box (and please let the cat be OK) and observe in which of the infinite Empirical State possibilities God is.
But up to then ... He is the absolute all, absolute nothing, and whatever possible forms out there.
Am I wrong?

Which then brings me to the first question:
"Open-Minded Science":
While a friend told me, it is all very open-minded, but I think FAR outside the box.
How open-minded is open-minded here?
I mean, some might even seem "too idiotic to be true", even though I can substantiate what I bring.

Or, if you like the question rephrased:
Am i still welcome?  

Second question:
What "is the limit" of acceptable?
Note, that I am not that "scientific", but far more philosophical in approach.
Hence.

Kindest regards:
"No-One". (Ben)

If I messed up (this was the only place with "open minded" that I found, but this post might be in the wrong spot.
My apologies if this is the case.

Also, I do not specifically will post about (Quantum) Physics, but other fields to, if I am allowed.

Thank you.
"No-One".

PS:
I never copyright stuff.
I do not mean to make any form of profit, nor is this a "throw to become famous".
I care for neither, I am an absolute minimalist (safe for my PC, which is my "all": TV, Radio, Telephone, etc.).
IF you see anything out of interest, feel free to use it, but within it's whole context.

Thank you.
N-O

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, Ben Robberecht said:

"It is the Earth falling to the man" (The Happiest Thought).
Wait, WHAT?

Yeah, that is a bit counterintuitive. It's mainstream theory though, and most physicists seem to believe in it fervently. People like the Cambridge group behind gauge theory gravity have proposed alternative theories based on an optical analogy, but they're a tiny minority.*

1 hour ago, Ben Robberecht said:

A true scientist has to keep an open mind, right?

A scientist should be open to anything that's consistent with the principles of science. The problem right now is that the experimental data available to us since the turn of the 20th century are so confounding: The speed of light seems to be the same for all observers, subatomic phenomena seem to be nondeterministic, and no one has been able to detect anything to indicate that the universe has a special reference frame of its own.

It all seems to violate the traditional scientific principles developed in the 19th century, so the 20th-century physics community abandoned them to a a large degree and formulated new ones. And string theorists have even been challenging the one most important, defining principle of science: it should make predictions that are in agreement with experimental data.

Maybe the world is weary of science. Maybe we have too many high-tech weapons and we're on the verge of blowing ourselves to smithereens, so people want to get back to nature and restore some balance in life. At least until Elon Musk can colonize Mars. 😊

 

* I originally mentioned Ilja Schmelze's GLET, but that uses the same geometric model of gravity as GR.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[Ben Robberecht]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Yeah, that is a bit counterintuitive. It's mainstream theory though, and most physicists seem to believe in it fervently. People like Ilja Schmelzer have proposed alternative theories based on the ideas of Hendrik Lorentz, but we're a tiny minority.

First:
Thank you for reading, and replying.
Much appreciated.

To react:
See, where I do appreciate the Lorentz theory, I can but partly.
There's this idea, that gravity "is not".
Instead, it is a pushing force.
That just makes no sense ... I mean, the implications that is so, are too staggering.
Also raises a ton of new questions:
While this can work on a "flat Earth", how does that go for a spherical one?
How does that then work for say Sol system?

The first gravity idea (a mass holding object pulls at other objects of mass) seem FAR more realistic to me, when I look at the "whole that is" (for as far as we know it).
This "pushing" theory just does not add up.
I've been doing countless thought experiments on these (I do not have a super computer sadly), but each ends up in total chaos.
It just won't work, in my head (but do know, I can be BADLY incorrect, as my brain is not that super at all, which I certainly acknowledge!).

It is not so counter intuitive, it's just all-logic-defying, at least, in that brain of mine.
Attraction then, aaaaah, well that then DOES work.
Bizarre.

Thank you for responding on this, good sir.

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

A scientist should be open to anything that's consistent with the principles of science. The problem right now is that the experimental data available to us since the turn of the 20th century are so confounding. The speed of light seems to be the same for all observers, subatomic phenomena seem to be nondeterministic, and no one has been able to detect anything to indicate that the universe has a special reference frame of its own.

It all seems to violate the traditional scientific principles developed in the 19th century, so the 20th-century physics community abandoned them to a a large degree and formulated new ones. And the string theorists have even been challenging the one most important, defining principle of science: it should make predictions that are in agreement with experimental data.

Maybe the world is weary of science. Maybe we have too many high-tech weapons and we're on the verge of blowing ourselves to smithereens, so people want to get back to nature and restore some balance in life.

Confounding?
Well, most seem rather logical, there are, then, exceptions.
Sadly, these days, it's harder and harder to get actually empirical data.
More and more is buried (be it "accidental" (ignorance, missing a key part, ... ) or "expressly" (people trying to confuse others with malicious intend) in anti-facts.
Trying to obtain data about the CoViD-12 virus for one, is nigh impossible.
Even from doctors, they too seem to be in a "what is it now" kind of state about CoViD-19.

There's SO much nonsense out there, that one does get lost, trying to find the real thing.
It's absurd.

I mean, let's take mass and speed.
So many claim that, based upon Relativity, Mass will become infinite at light speed.
No.
If that was true, all would be gone.
Logic:
If mass would become infinite at light speed, this means, that mass increases together with the velocity, right?
If not, like some suggest, that it will go from X (where X is the mass of anything reaching luminal velocity) to infinite at superluminal velocity.
Or, in other words, "Mass will jump from X to infinity when breaching that barrier."
Well, that is, I think, pure magic?
No?

But if this is not "possible" to jump, and we still speak of infinite mass at (super)luminal speeds ... then this mass would increase according to the speed increasing, no?
Brings me to an issue, in logic.
Half the speed of light = half the mass at luminal speed.
But ... half the mass of infinite ... is till quite very much infinite, isn't it.
Which then gets me to the next thought:
If I were to stretch my finger, it is, according to this though, of infinite mass?
Since, even divided by infinity, infinity will be that: infinite.
Which totally breaks all down?
Unless ... magic does exist?
Or?

I know, it's stupid, right?
But ... is it?
People tell me:
"Relativity works, think for instance GPS satellites working on that principle."
Sure, but uuuh .. 2 questions here:
1) Did your satellite go (super)luminal?
No?
Well then, how can you tell it does work?
2) Which Theory of Relativity did you point at?
Since, General and Special Relativity ... are not quite the same?
To which I have not yet received an answer.

Funny, I have not to any question I asked, really.

Another one is time dilation.
I applaud to the General Relativity in this regard:
Time is affected by gravity.

Special relativity then ... velocity affects time?
Eh, no.
Nor can I accept light as the ultimate speed.
I mean, 8 minutes for light to arrive on Earth from the sun?
Heck (Hyperbolic sarcasm, be aware), I am cripple and I walk faster.
Serious, that's SLOW.
Proof?
Oh, "A dunno" ... what about Planck Epoch that breaks the speed of light (IF BBT is correct)?
Sure, that's theory, right, Big Bang Theory (BBT)?
But I prefer it (I am biased, but do not exclude ... )  over Static Universe.
That one does in it's very fundament make as much sense as planting a banana tree on the surface of the sun.
"Energy out of nothing." ... from what I understand, only one thing can come out of nothing, and that is nothing.
Absolute Zero Kelvin, as one example, is an Infinite reach.
Much like dividing 1 until you reach 0 (without cheating).
So infinitely small is nothing.
Further more, an infinite time of Null is still very much Null, no?
Ludicrous comparison, but it makes sense, I think?

"But particles emerge out of nothing."
No?
Big Bang again:
ALL matter is, be it directly or indirectly, formed out of quantum Energy.
The particle you saw pop up, did too.

Oh, brings me to an idea I had in the late eighties.
The Universal Law ... is, I think, known.
Not yet acknowledged or identified as, but known none the less.
Thank you, Fathers of Quantum Physics!
It is ... Quantum Science.
That is, if my reasoning holds, of course.

I'll stop here for now, I hope you enjoyed my insanities, took them as a sci-fi novel, or, who knows, might bring you on a new idea?

Like I warned afore:
FAR out of the box.
Yet, who knows, it just might touch a grain of sand, dear sir (and who knows, other readers).

Kindly yours:
"No-One".

If you like to hear more of my ideas, please tell me.
N-O

Fun thought experiment:
Tachyons.
Now, many believe in it's possible existence, many more ... do not, correct?

Why?
Well can't prove it.

Reason?
TOO FAST, as we still are subluminal up to luminal in technology (note: up to, as in not there yet).
In other words, it is gone before we can capture a glimpse from it, correct?

Now, let us assume the next:
It exists, and it is faster than light.

Will it (with both relativity theories in mind):
A) venture into the past?
B) Venture into the far future?
C) be in our time frame, just unseen?
I personally am inclined to vote .... C).
Why would ANYTHING venture either way?
IMHO, this tachyon ... will not do either:
It makes no sense, there's no REASON for it to venture either way, but to remain unseen in our time frame, despite it's speed.

Mind:
This again is just as insignificant as idea as the rest, it states absolutely nothing.
And I won't say otherwise.
But as thought experiment, it's still, I think, darn intriguing, no?  
N-O.

Last one before I grab an hour of sleep 07.45H here in Belgium):
Light travels at 300'000 kmh.
It takes 8 minutes to reach Earth.
Imagine I have a ship, that is:
Anti-gravitational in nature.
Gravity-defying.
Capable to instantly accelerate to 50 times (and equally decelerate, or things will get messy on board ... as well as Earth ... Kinetic Energy due to velocity, you know) luminal speed without turning us into soup.
Radiation nullifying.
And which has a Quantum Entangled Radio (also for the sake of this experiment, instantly in speed, regardless the distance).

I start on the Sun's surface.
I instantly enter 4 times light speed.
Meantime, I converse with Earth.

1) When will I arrive?
2) What would happen with the conversation on this ship with Earth?

IMHO, this will happen:
1) I will simply arrive 2 minutes later on Earth.
2) Communication (since the gravity-nullifying effects of our ship) will go as normal.

What do you think?  

N-O.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Ben Robberecht

[Lorentz Jr]

2 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

There's this idea, that gravity "is not".

The thing about gravity is that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass. That's too much of a coincidence to ignore, so geometric models make sense. Geometric theories have fewer arbitrary parameters, and physicists like that, because theories with fewer parameters are less likely to be mistakes out of the theorist's imagination.

So objects don't really "fall", they just travel along the straightest possible path in a curved world. Those paths are called "geodesics". No push, no pull (except for other forces besides gravity), just motion.

2 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

So many claim that, based upon Relativity, Mass will become infinite at light speed.

That's not the standard convention anymore. Objects get harder to accelerate, but mass is considered to be constant and the increase in apparent inertia is written explicitly as the gamma factor ([math]\gamma[/math]).

2 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

1) Did your [GPS] satellite go (super)luminal?
No?
Well then, how can you tell it does work?

The effects of relativity are well known and experimentally verified. GPS without relativity is less accurate.

2 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

2) Which Theory of Relativity did you point at?
Since, General and Special Relativity ... are not quite the same?
To which I have not yet received an answer.

Special relativity is built into general relativity. From a theoretical standpoint, GR replaces SR. SR is only used in situations where gravity isn't important because it's much simpler than GR.

2 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

Special relativity then ... velocity affects time?
Eh, no.

Yeah, I'm with you on that one. That's what Lorentzian theory is about.

As I said, though, it's not mainstream theory, so this forum only allows discussion of it in the Speculations area.

2 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

"Energy out of nothing." ... from what I understand, only one thing can come out of nothing, and that is nothing.

Yep. I'm with you on that one too. We just don't know enough to say for sure.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[Ben Robberecht]

"The thing about gravity is that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass. That's too much of a coincidence to ignore, so geometric models make sense. Geometric theories have fewer arbitrary parameters, and physicists like that, because theories with fewer parameters are less likely to be mistakes out of the theorist's imagination.

So objects don't really "fall", they just travel along the straightest possible path in a curved world. Those paths are called "geodesics". No push, no pull (except for other forces besides gravity), just motion."
If a man  steps of a ledge and falls of a really tall building, on a wind-still day, how come he falls, seen from the impact, right under where he began?
The man is, according to the world, not moving in any direction but "straight down"?
If the rotation of the planet would affect him, he would fall off "quite a distance", no?
Yet ... that does not seem to happen?
Seen a few instances (9-11 had a sad example) of this?

"That's not the standard convention anymore. Objects get harder to accelerate, but mass is considered to be constant and the increase in apparent inertia is written explicitly as the gamma factor (γ). "
Aaaah, finally.
Been saying this for 30 years now.
(I can only prove the last 20, sadly, due to most sites being down now).
And yet ... so many bring it up, even tomorrow.
What do I miss?
Apparently not all seem to agree.

As for the need for more energy to increase velocity:
Well, this is already proven in the first engines compared to ours nowadays.
Imagine a 2HP engine capable of reaching 400MPH ... .

"The effects of relativity are well known and experimentally verified. GPS without relativity is less accurate. "
Of course, and I DO largely agree with these!
I mean, Relativity at Superluminal speeds.
I specifically pointed to this part, let me look it up.
Quoting myself:
""Relativity works, think for instance GPS satellites working on that principle."
Sure, but uuuh .. 2 questions here:
1) Did your satellite go (super)luminal?
No?"
Relativity is a big amount of several ideas.
I agree with 90%, but not that much with the last 10%.
Same for Bohr, or even Descartes (I think, therefore I am) which seems incomplete from a certain point of view:
I would prefer to state:
"I am, thus I can think, stating ... that I am."
Because, while in itself seemingly insignificant, the left out part DOES matter.
Causality.
Everything is causality.
There's a result from every (in)action, and to each result an (in)action:
One cannot be without the other?
Thoughts?

"Special relativity is built into general relativity. From a theoretical standpoint, GR replaces SR. SR is only used in situations where gravity isn't important because it's much simpler than GR. "
Oh, misunderstanding from my part, I saw them as two "on their own".
And, I think, the reason for this is the "Speed Effect" on time.
From what I get, speed does not affect time.
The time at Space Station is affected by Earth's lowered gravity due to distance, no?
Which is what affects the time dilation?

"Yeah, I'm with you on that one. That's what Lorentzian theory is about.

As I said, though, it's not mainstream theory, so this forum only allows discussion of it in the Speculations area."
Should be, good sir.
Because ... logic and rational.
That these are less known ... is a crime.
Why?
It holds us back.
In understandings, in technology, in science.
"For he who does not understand, will never grasp the deeper."
Thoughts, sir?

"Yep. I'm with you on that one too. We just don't know enough to say for sure. "
AMEN!
I am MORE than aware that my thoughts can be DARN wrong.
Yet, in each thought experiment, these seem to work out.
Now, I already said, I am not a man of equations, nor even Mathematica.
Because these stem from ideas, and ideas can be quite darn wrong, even if the equation and the maths turns out OK.
If the very base is wrong, no equation nor Mathematica will correct this.
I think (yes, pointing again to) Speed affects Time, and Infinite Mass at LS.
But those, ruling both for such long times, were ... probably!!! ... not that right at all. (Still have to speak with "both words", we still are not there yet to make these absolute ... or not. Thus all in between can still be, whether we like it or not).

Sir, did you read the idea on the Universal Law maybe being Quantum Science?
If so, thoughts about it?

Many MANY thanks, good sir.
Finally one to at least read my oddities, and reply on them.

Yours truly:
N-O.

Oh, sir, there is one thing I fail to get:
At absolute 0°K all grinds to full stop, correct?
Does this also include the known forces?
It would seem plausible, since, these need time, and in a way even motion (which ultimately is time I guess?)?
IF so, can we state then that time is also affected by temperature?
N-O.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Ben Robberecht

[studiot]

Quote

Greetings all, an intro and a question ... .

 

Good Morning Ben.

Congratulations on your excellent English.

I assume you are enduring the same as me, a miserable wet morning following a miserable wet night.

I would like to make one comment and enter a plea.

 

Can I suggest you are introducing too many topics into a single thread which makes my poor head spin  -  I don't know what it does to yours ?

One topic per thread please.

 

OK so you have asked about equations, though I don't see much maths in your posts.

Equations have a particular significance in maths

5 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

Reasoning:
For one:
What is an equation?
It's no more than an IDEA put into a scientific mathematical language, right?
But what if the idea is incorrect?

No reasoning, as in logic, does not work in equations.
Equations are a mathematical concept and I can try to explain them more fully in a separate thread if you are interested ?

[Ben Robberecht]

31 minutes ago, studiot said:

Can I suggest you are introducing too many topics into a single thread which makes my poor head spin  -  I don't know what it does to yours ?

One topic per thread please.

My sincere apologies, sir.
In my understanding, they all are one.
We began to splice science into several fields, and each lost track of the other, while ... still related.
And my brain is wired as such.

I have severe Asperger's and ADHD, I am not that an equation expert, nor math expert, instead, I literally "see" all this.
When reading, a film rolls in my head, which "shows" me certain ... mechanics.
Some have this reading a thriller, or a comic, for me this happens with science oriented works.
Be it a book, a film, a docu ... , and whilst reading or seeing this, a movie plays in my head.
I often spoke of thought experiments, these are for me the movies I see play.
Infinite Mass?
I can literally see a mass holding Nucleus being fired off, and see the possible consequences.
Most people do not understand this, but I have met a few, with the same "ability", to put it like that.
Funny enough, nigh all of these ... had Autism.
I wonder if this is indeed an Autism based thing?
Now, do not misunderstand:
I do not see myself as "intellgent".
I am just clever enough to know ... that I know nothing.
What is so today, will probably not be tomorrow.
Science is revised constantly, right?  

But, I WILL absolutely do my best to comply.
Bit annoying that the site ties all subsequent in row posts together, possibly part of why it is so messy.
My ADHD then, makes my head messy as well, and thus the output is ... yup: "a bloody mess".
Again though, good sir:
I hear you, and will do my best to comply.  

Thank you for warning me about this!
Much appreciated.
 

43 minutes ago, studiot said:

OK so you have asked about equations, though I don't see much maths in your posts.

Equations have a particular significance in maths

No reasoning, as in logic, does not work in equations.
Equations are a mathematical concept and I can try to explain them more fully in a separate thread if you are interested ?

Well, that is UNDENIABLY true.
Absolutely.

But.
An equation is a Mathematical expression of thought, correct?
Now, what ... if that thought is ... incorrect?
Example: We race through the Universe with our lovely Galaxy, correct?
Pointing again at Infinite Mass and Velocity-Time Dilation, back then CORRECT (since we had no deeper insight at that given point in time. If Einstein had our later technologies and understanding, things might have been a lot different, I think.), but since for instance the dawn of the Cyclotron (1933), the Infinite Mass idea was debunked.
Lorentz (which I just learned, from sir Lorentz Jr) actually thought the same, about the Velocity-Time Dilation.
Nigh absolutely sure, not in the simplistic way I saw this, yet with the same (or similar) outcome.
Believing Lorentz was a pure Nuclear and Radiation Physicist, I was not aware, Lorentz also tackled this one.
I have a wee bit base understanding of radiation, due to the Light part I spoke of above, and as a schooled Industrial and Residential Electrician/Mechanic, alas, there it ends.
Being of poor origin, and still poor today (I am not complaining, I am, luckily, a true Minimalist), back then when I went to school, we could not afford higher schooling.
So, it was a vocational school for me.
Hence my lack of Mathematical expressing of my thoughts.

Being 52 (and several extremely close calls later such as a 30 meter drop onto concrete, BASF Antwerp, May 1999, putting me in a wheelchair) I am no longer one to study equational science, I think.
It's not just my ADHD that interferes, I am mostly, due to my Asperger's, a visual learner.
I am a limited man, with a troubled past, which also hinders me.
And you, my very good sir ... can't be with me all the time.
I cannot ask this of you.
You have a life, while mine is near end.
The life expectancy of a man with Asperger's is about 58.
This also applies to me, if I had not terminal heart failure, a result of 6 massive heart attacks, and a light one.

Considering all this, it might just be a useless effort on your side.
Now, this might sound a bit harsh, it does not change the facts.
In the end, this is nature:
What is obsolete must make place for the new.
Out of Energy came Matter, into Energy it will return (at the end of it's life cycle).
Energy nor data is ever lost, right?  
Thus, I will be forever.
Just in a "slightly less organised form".    XD

Still, I REALLY thank you for the offer.
Know, however weird, you are the second not mocking me, which is darn weird for me.
On the same site and day, even.
Incredible!

I have immense respect and a deep appreciation for you, sir.
And I am very grateful for the offer.
I hope, the one that gets you as instructor, will appreciate it too.
Which sadly seems to be less and less, these days in time. 
I do, though.
Very much, so.

kindest regards:
N-O.

PS, this is (I hope) the last messy post, I felt, that what I wrote, had to be written.
"Chaos does not exist, there is only super structure."
Except in my mind.  

[Genady]

6 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

according to Einstein:
"It is the Earth falling to the man" (The Happiest Thought).

Two wrongs here:

1. It is not so according to Einstein.

2. It is not what Einstein called, the happiest thought.

 

[Genady]

7 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

But, Einstein being Einstein, he said basically:
It's just relative.
Or:
Even relativity ... is relative.

No, Einstein didn't say this.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

But.
An equation is a Mathematical expression of thought, correct?
Now, what ... if that thought is ... incorrect?

My apologies.

I put my comma in the wrong place which changes the meaning rather drastically.

I said

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Equations have a particular significance in maths

8 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

Reasoning:
For one:
What is an equation?
It's no more than an IDEA put into a scientific mathematical language, right?
But what if the idea is incorrect?

No reasoning, as in logic, does not work in equations.
Equations are a mathematical concept and I can try to explain them more fully in a separate thread if you are interested ?

Whereas I should have said

No, reasoning as in logic, does not work in equations.

In other words I was responding to your question "right ?"  (meaning is my statement correct?) by saying

No it is not correct.

Reasoning has a particular form of expression and equations offer another different form of expression.

When logic (which is part of philosophy) uses the word reasoning it means that that three distinct things are involved.

Logic is about 'statements' and the 'connections' between them and something called truth values for these statements.

It's layout in simple terms runs as follows

Statement 1 (called the predicate) is connected to Statement 2 (called the subsequent) by a 'connective'.

An equation is a particular form of a single mathematical statement called a 'relation'.

 

2 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

Still, I REALLY thank you for the offer.
Know, however weird, you are the second not mocking me, which is darn weird for me.
On the same site and day, even.
Incredible!

No problem this community has many members ready to help those who really want it.

By the way I have a couple of decades on you so don't be too hard on yourself.
I'm sure there is plenty of life left in the old dog yet.

[Ben Robberecht]

3 hours ago, Genady said:

Two wrongs here:

1. It is not so according to Einstein.

2. It is not what Einstein called, the happiest thought.

 

Odd, I seem to recall it is, but God, it's been ages since I delved in Relativity.
I'll need to fetch my book, and re-read it.

We are in an era in which where reality is not, where aliens walk among us, in which Mars has bases with aliens that build faces in the sand, where the Mayan Calender signified the end of all, and where Nibiru was Doom as well.
Where people stalk actors for their deeds in a series on TV, threatening the actor for these actions.
Where War has been raging 20 years +.
An era that makes less and less sense to me, in many ways, and in which I got utterly lost.
A reality ... that just was, is, nor ever will mine.
Never felt in place here.

And all that leads sometimes to me missing something, or making a mistake.

Sincere apologies, sir.

And thank you for setting this straight.
N-O.
 

1 hour ago, Genady said:

No, Einstein didn't say this.

I know, I said:
"But, Einstein being Einstein, he said basically:"

Saying something basically, is not to be taken literally, but giving it a different context.
And Relativity is relative, this to many a thing.
Even ... itself, I think.

Often seems that way at least.
And more and more so, with all that goes on.  

Kindest regards:
N-O.

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

Whereas I should have said

No, reasoning as in logic, does not work in equations.

In other words I was responding to your question "right ?"  (meaning is my statement correct?) by saying

No it is not correct.

Reasoning has a particular form of expression and equations offer another different form of expression.

When logic (which is part of philosophy) uses the word reasoning it means that that three distinct things are involved.

Logic is about 'statements' and the 'connections' between them and something called truth values for these statements.

It's layout in simple terms runs as follows

Statement 1 (called the predicate) is connected to Statement 2 (called the subsequent) by a 'connective'.

An equation is a particular form of a single mathematical statement called a 'relation'.

I see.
I get this, but if that is so, how then did Einstein came to certain equations that do not hold up?
Like the Infinite Mass as example?
1915:
"As an object approaches the speed of light, the object's mass becomes infinite and so does the energy required to move it."
Not really, is it, sir.
And STILL, it works equationally  and Mathematically?

Special Relativity then:
nothing can go faster than the speed of light. If something were to exceed this limit, it would move backward in time.
Also not quite exact, though, equationally and mathematically sound in his papers?
*confused*

Or do I still miss the ball here?
Do you mean something different, sir?

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

No problem this community has many members ready to help those who really want it.

By the way I have a couple of decades on you so don't be too hard on yourself.
I'm sure there is plenty of life left in the old dog yet.

I so much respect this, sir.
That much, in fact, that it feels wrong to take "advantage" of the offer, since, well, I might not be around that long, any more.
Which then feels like having taken time from you, that might as well be used far better on someone younger, healthier, with better prospects?

If you can muster someone turning you insane, find pleasure in masochism, and one, medically speaking, expected to not be too long around any more ... sure.  
Take the part here above:
All would get where you went, what you meant, I then ... did not quite get it.
Having ADHD is like having a wee li'll kid:
You need to take him by the hand, and show it/explain it thoroughly, or it will not be understood, missed.
And I have this ... badly so.
 

Be warned though.
I count for a whole school of wee li'll kids.    XP

Hmmm, do I need to brush up something specific?
Periodic Table, Abiogenesis, Biology, Botany, ... ?
Most is still there, I hope.
That is, most of the mechanics, at least.

One question:
WHY does Logic Reasoniong not work?
This is so ... weird?

Kindest regards:
N-O.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Ben Robberecht

[Genady]

22 minutes ago, Ben Robberecht said:

Saying something basically, is not to be taken literally, but giving it a different context. And Relativity is relative, this to many a thing.

If this is not about the theory of relativity as in physics, then it should not be in the Physics forum. It should go elsewhere.

[Ben Robberecht]

Just now, Genady said:

If this is not about the theory of relativity as in physics, then it should not be in the Physics forum. It should go elsewhere.

Yes, Sir.
I was basically told this, as well as being less a mess.

My apologies, good sir.
N-O.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

OK, please pick one topic to discuss when you open a thread, and make it relevant to the particular section you're posting in. If you want to talk about Physics, DON'T bring up your god. If you want to talk about why you think mainstream science is wrong, please post in Speculations, and bring plenty of evidence (even some would be nice). 

This is a forum for science discussion. It's not your blog. If you make assertions, be prepared to present supporting reasoning and evidence. 

I don't know where to put this thread, but it doesn't belong in Physics. There's no supportive reasoning, so it can't even go in Speculations. If you can't support the stances you're taking, you won't be following our rules. And as you can see, bringing up so many topics in one thread is counterproductive. I'm just going to lock this thread, so feel free to start others, one topic at a time. We'd like to hear your ideas, but only if you can support them as well as the mainstream science we've learned has been supported. I hope that makes sense and thanks for understanding.