everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So then what is your answer? What is the REAL shape of the trajectory of
>> the cannonball?
>>>
>
>> OK, so taking into account the presence of the wind in the sails, the
>> presence of the ship, the presence of the ocean, the presence of the dock,
>> the presence of sailors both on the ship and on the dock, the presence of
>> the sun overhead, and the presence of all the stars in the heavens — what
>> is the real shape of the trajectory?
>>>
>
>> Are you moving right now? If so, what is your real velocity right now? Tell
>> me what went into producing that number?
>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Well Odd fellow, I'm pretty sure I spelled it out clearly the way motion is judged.
> But seems to have passed straight over your head, I need to lower my aim so you get it.
>
> The "shape" of the trajectory of the canon ball is relative to the
> relative origin and state of motion of the one doing the observing of
> said cannon ball. But there is only one ball, and of itself it has no
> perceptible motion.
> Only in relation to another object does motion become meaningful.

Relative motion is the only motion.

> This is Galilean Physics. Agreed to by Newton, but discarded by Einstein
> as being only apparently correct, but not fully correct, so he tossed out
> Newton and Galileo and brought in Special relativity and GR.

Well, so far Einstein agrees that relative motion is the only motion.

>
> But this was simply a case of scientific fraud. Backed by powerful people
> who wish to control what they have no right to.
>
> You see, you stupid little man, that in Einsteins theory, he deceived you
> when he describe his thought experiments in a way that leads you down the
> garden path to a place where bad shit happens, on the promise that there
> are sweets there....
> Anyway, the deception is introduced when Einstein ALLOWS one observer to
> KNOW his condition of motion RELATIVE to the other players in the
> scenario, BUT HE FORBIDS, RESTRICTS, CENSORS OUT the same information
> available to the "moving" observer.

Nonsense, he does no such thing.

As you said, the ball has of itself no motion on its own, only motion
relative to something else.

>
> OBS1 is calculating on the basis that he will assume the stationary
> position, and the other guy will therefore become the moving guy, because
> relative motion IS OCCURRING between the tow guys.
>
> BUT the liar Einstein tricks you when he BLOCKS the second observer from
> all information regarding the RELATIVE motion between him and the first
> observer. Einstein simply claims that the second observer has no way of
> knowing that he is moving, so he conveniently disregards all data that
> would have shown that a relative motion between obs 1 and Obs2 is going
> on during the whole experiment!

Oh, bullshit, he does no such thing. Obs2 DOES see the relative motion
between himself and Obs1, just like Obs1 sees the relative motion between
himself and Obs2. Einstein made no such claim that either observer is
oblivious of the relative motion.

Where in the hell did you pick up the idea otherwise?

>
> One observer is doing math with variables a and b, plus a constant c,
> but the second observer is BLIND, a BLIND IGNORANT Observer that has no
> clue about the conditions of the experiment.
> He is working ONLY with variable a, and the constant c. (because
> Einstein has him believing that variable b = ZERO, so its not affecting any outcome!
>
> I repeat, if both observers possessed the same information, were both
> observing the same events, then they both will derive the same answers,
> and it will be backing up Galileo and Newton, whilst showing up Einsteins
> ideas as scientific garbage.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Den 05.01.2022 22:53, skrev Odd Bodkin:
> everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The ball dropped from the top of a ship’s mast. In one reference frame, the
>>> trajectory is straight and vertical. In another reference frame, the
>>> trajectory is parabolic with a horizontal displacement. So, in YOUR mind,
>>> what is the “truth” about the trajectory? What is its real shape? Don’t
>>> tell me what you find wrong with either Einstein’s view or what you think
>>> Galileo thinks. What do YOU think the true trajectory is?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> You guys are very confused. Bordering on stupid really.
>>
>> Because you believe that an object can actually do many actions at the
>> same time, all on its own.
>> It does not and can not.
>
> So then what is your answer? What is the REAL shape of the trajectory of
> the cannonball?

https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 15:12:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So then what is your answer? What is the REAL shape of the trajectory of
> >> the cannonball?
> >>>
> >
> >> OK, so taking into account the presence of the wind in the sails, the
> >> presence of the ship, the presence of the ocean, the presence of the dock,
> >> the presence of sailors both on the ship and on the dock, the presence of
> >> the sun overhead, and the presence of all the stars in the heavens — what
> >> is the real shape of the trajectory?
> >>>
> >
> >> Are you moving right now? If so, what is your real velocity right now? Tell
> >> me what went into producing that number?
> >
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Well Odd fellow, I'm pretty sure I spelled it out clearly the way motion is judged.
> > But seems to have passed straight over your head, I need to lower my aim so you get it.
> >
> > The "shape" of the trajectory of the canon ball is relative to the
> > relative origin and state of motion of the one doing the observing of
> > said cannon ball. But there is only one ball, and of itself it has no
> > perceptible motion.
> > Only in relation to another object does motion become meaningful.
> Relative motion is the only motion.

"And yet it moves", poor halfbrain.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 9:43:15 AM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/5/2022 4:12 PM, everything isalllies wrote:
>>
>>> This truth is what Einstein deletes from his hypothesis on STR. He
>>> always has the moving observer IGNORE the fact that he is moving,

Woah. Let’s get this straight.
Observer 1 sees Observer 2 and notes that there is relative motion between
them.
Observer 2 sees Observer 1 and notes that there is relative motion between
them.
Now, which of these Observers, from these observations, correctly concludes
that he is moving?
In YOUR view?

Be careful here, because you’re not going to cite an answer that Galileo
agrees with, I’m pretty sure.

>> Then you don't understand what Galileo had to say on the topic. Forget
>> Einstein, you disagree with Galileo!
>
> On what basis do you make this statement?
> Galileo, Classical Physics is straightforward and logical when it comes
> to relative motion, there's not much to grasp, its basic.
>
> Like a typical Einstein fan boy, a religious like nutter, you sidetrack
> and divert attention to a non related topic to protect your gods dogma.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 15:42:41 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 9:43:15 AM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/5/2022 4:12 PM, everything isalllies wrote:
> >>
> >>> This truth is what Einstein deletes from his hypothesis on STR. He
> >>> always has the moving observer IGNORE the fact that he is moving,
> Woah. Let’s get this straight.
> Observer 1 sees Observer 2 and notes that there is relative motion between
> them.
> Observer 2 sees Observer 1 and notes that there is relative motion between
> them.
> Now, which of these Observers, from these observations, correctly concludes
> that he is moving?
> In YOUR view?
>
> Be careful here, because you’re not going to cite an answer that Galileo
> agrees with, I’m pretty sure.

As he is dead... somehow he accepted, however, that Sun doesn't
move no matter what he sees. Or didn't he, poor stinker?

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin:
>> Sorry, but “nonsense” and “irrational” are in the eye of the beholder.
>> That’s why experiment OVERRULES what someone thinks makes sense or not.
>
> But someone who THINKS and tries to make sense of what he OBSERVES is
> only able to provide a SUBJECTIVE OPINION about the meaning of the
> Observation. Its ONLY HIS PERSONAL OPINION , another observer can and
> often do have other opinions. And that exactly why an experiment can
> be claimed to be proof of a hypothesis.

No, you’re not following.
A prediction presented by a theory is a NUMBER. It is not an explanation of
what’s going on. A prediction is a VALUE that is predicted will be
measured.

If you have two competing theories, and you’ve found the place where they
make different predictions — not different explanations, different
predictions — this means that:
Theory A says that under circumstances X, outcome Y will feature a
measurable property Z of value 32.5+/-0.2.
Theory B says that under circumstances X, outcome Y will feature a
measurable property Z of value 47.1+/-0.3.
Now you set up an experiment with circumstances X, find the outcome Y and
measure property Z. It has measured value 47.4+/-0.8. This measurement is
consistent with Theory B and inconsistent with Theory A. There is
absolutely no ambiguity about this, nor any “interpretation” of the results
required.

THIS is how physics is done.

You’ve gotten yourself all spun up thinking that Einstein produced nothing
but “explanations” and “thought experiments”, when in fact he generated a
theory that produced NUMBERS, and these have been compared to measurements
time and time again.

>
> SO you ARE WRONG, GET OVER YOURSELF.
>
>
>> There was a day when Newton’s first law (due to Galileo) was commonly
>> viewed as nonsense. Everything came to rest unless continued to be impelled
>> by a continuing net force. Then Galileo said, no, things will continue
>> moving indefinitely in a straight line in the absence of no net force at
>> all. So what was once “irrational” has in the last 400 years become
>> intuitive, because experiment bore that hypothesis out.
>
>
> REALLY? What experiment demonstrates that an object will keep moving
> forever in a straight line? There are none.

No experiments run forever, but there have been plenty of deep space probes
that have moved in a straight line for decades now.

>
> It is a HYPOTHESIS that claims that this is true, and limited experiments
> do certainly SUPPORT the claim, but mostly the RATIONAL ARGUMENTS and
> sound LOGIC of Galileo is why we accept that this hypothesis can be
> considered as a LAW of Physics. NOT because of subjective observed evidence proving it.

Nope. You have it backwards. The truth of Galileo’s hypotheses was
validated by experiment, not rational argument. You obviously have a
completely wrong idea about how science works, as has been noted already.

>
>
>>
>> This is why appealing to intuition or common sense or consistency with
>> prevailing frameworks is decidedly NOT a requirement of hypotheses.
>
> So any insane scribbling that can hardly be read, an incoherent mish mash of garbage

If it is shown in this paper that it is consistent with already existing
experimental data, that it makes clear and distinctive predictions of
measurements, and in fact those predictions match experiment, then yes — no
matter how implausible or upsetting the hypothesis is to your sensibilities
— it is an accepted theory of physics.

> will be acceptable is a vaild Paper worthy of publishing by a reputable
> Scientific Journal, awaiting someone to go conduct experiments to see if
> the garbage might be correct? Because its not about if the hypothesis is
> rational, or internally coherent, or is free of self contradictions, all
> that matters is that predictions are in line with experiment.

“Hypothesis is rational” doesn’t mean anything.
“Internally coherent” doesn’t mean anything either.
“Free of self-contradictions”, yes, that’s important. Relativity is free of
self-contradictions. There are apparently some who fling the word paradox
around as a self-contradiction without thinking about the context in which
that word is being used. There are no internal contradictions in
relativity. None.

> (the observations of which must be interpreted by preferably the papers
> authors best mate, who is blind in one eye and cant see well for the other. )
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> So you get to hop from one foot to the other as it suits you, to duck and
>>> dodge all criticism.
>> Well, if you don’t understand the statement of the hypothesis, that’s not
>> the problem with the hypothesis, it’s a problem with you.
>>
>>
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> And to finish off your stupid statements you just have to point out that
> im wrong because I cant understand things that you can. Try addressing
> the problems and not flip off the critic as if that has solved the problem.
>
> Messenger: "The enemy is about to attack".
> Idiot King: Kill the messenger, good, that solved that little problem.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Nope. Someone trying to develop a new theory will come up with an
>> experiment where the new theory predicts a number X (or a bunch of
>> numbers) where X is a value with units (meters/second, whatever). An
>> experiment is done, and the measured value is Y. Properly done, Y has
>> an error bar as well. What Subjective Opinion is there when comparing X
>> to Y to see if the theory is supported or refuted?
>>
>> This is also one reason for peer review. Others can look at the
>> results, doing their own comparison of X to Y, and look for mistakes,
>> hidden bias or whatever.
>
> But this is NOT what you believe.
> "Someone", (call him Einstein) was trying to develop a new theory in 1905
> (actually they try to develop an hypothesis)
> Did he "come up with an experiment"? NO he did not.

Yes, he did propose experiments. Yes, he did use experimental data.

You remember the deflection of starlight around the sun? You know who
proposed that? You got it.

You might want to read some of his other papers from 1905 too. Take a look
at the one on Brownian motion, for example.

> His Hypothesis was accepted sans credits or references, and devoid of
> results of any experiment of any kind. (thinking is NOT AN EXPERIMENT)

Nope, you have your history wrong. His idea was not entertained seriously
until experimental tests showed agreement with the prediction.

> The paper was Published in his buddies Journal, without a shred of supporting material.
> No peer review was possible because he "had no peers" (Indeed, he was a clerk)
> Now in areal experiment, in Physics where we are not just considering
> simplistic motion, but claiming to be on the verge of tossing out all
> prior physics principals.... there is enormous room for subjective interpretation.
> In fact, there is not the possibility of an objective assessment at all.

You clearly do not know the first thing about experimental physics. Not the
first thing at all.

>
> There are always alternative explanations for EVERY one of the claimed
> "experiments that prove Einstein is right".
>
> The Starlight past the sun, the atomic clocks on planes, GPS, Atomic
> power, Photoelectric effect, (not the actual effect, but Einsteins
> explanation) all such experiments can and have been explained
> alternatively. And when you have multiple options, you don't get to
> simply choose your favourite.

Given 1 theory that explains 25 experimental results, versus 25 theories
that explain 25 experimental results, guess which one has more predictive
power?

Look, if you don’t like science or how science works, if you don’t believe
experiments tell you anything useful, then you’re anti-science. Then why
hang around a science group? I ask this as a serious question: WHY ARE YOU
HERE?

>
> The Peer review process has many times been shown to be a very flawed
> process, probably hampering Science more than encouraging its progress.
> You must know that surely? Peer reviewers are already totally biased
> exactly like you are right now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Frame comparison for the twins is equal relative converging or diverging.
Why don't the clocks share those equal relatives and be the same?

Mitchell Raemsch