Relativity

[IBDaMann]

Bunch of meaningless word salad,

Let me make sure I have this right. Instead of immediately recognizing "Physics is not mathematics" as obviously correct, you found it to be a confusing "word salad," yes? ... and instead of immediately recognizing "Mathematics is not physics" as obviously correct, you found it to be a confusing "word salad," yes? ... and you found mention that your misunderstanding is "Not the definition of a vector" to be a confusing "word salad," yes?

Would you care to guess how any rational adult can know that you are not college graduate material?

which indicates you never even had high school physics, were not aware of the basics of special relativity,...

In case you were wondering how all rational adults know that all you can do is to simply scramble to find plausible-sounding chunks of data, is that you clearly cannot be bothered to expend even a modicum of effort to perform any sort of independent research. If only you could, you would have looked into any recent (or maybe even some not-so-recent) conversations Into the Night has had on the subject, independently verified the veracity of his commentary, and saved yourself a crapload of embarrassment. That you far prefer the embarrassment of your own stupid commentary over performing any sort of cognitive work, broadcasts that only a very few minutes of Wikipedia-rangering is the absolute most you are willing to do. As a result, you leave a multi-dimensional vector of king-tipping that reaches back through every thread that you have trolled with your façade of simulated intellect.

All you had to do was a wee bit of research, but you just can't bring yourself to exert even that much effort. What is any rational adult going to conclude about your chances in a demanding academic environment, i.e. college? When that realization is combined with the fact that you understand no topic about which you discuss while posting only the views of others, any rational adult will presume that you never went to school, perhaps because you are some sort of agoraphobic, deathly afraid to ever leave your mother's basement, with all non-online schooling being simply out of the question, desperate for the outside world to be aware of your existence and to perceive you as a really thmart perthon ... but you don't know anything and you have no tools with which to work. Not to mention that you are absolutely desperate at this point and you can't let the voice of honesty guilt you into abandoning your Vaudeville act.

I wish you the best of luck, but I can't lie to you about your chances. Your charade is transparent to all rational adults.

Have a great week.

 

[IBDaMann]

Do you know what it is that prevents Bohr's and Schrodinger's models from being "classically deterministic"? This would be an excellent opportunity for you to show that you really know your stuff. If you don't know your stuff, however, you're not going to find it on Wikipedia or Quora or within the first 200,000 hits of a Google search and you'll have to come up with a really lame excuse for not just firing off this one-sentence answer.

The floor is yours.

You didn't answer my question.

I don't think he can.

Cypress can't answer any questions. Cypress hasn't answered any questions.

Remember, his schtick is to declare all questions as having been asked in bad faith, and hence are not deserving of his attention.

 

[Into the Night]

Bunch of meaningless word salad, which indicates you never even had high school physics, were not aware of the basics of special relativity, were not aware that calculating two dimensional vector magnitude takes nothing more than eighth grade math skills, and really aren't capable of anything more than throwing out some buzzwords you read about somewhere and patching them together in gibberish you hope sounds effective.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow. You win the dumbass award of the day.

No, he happens to be correct. You are describing yourself again.

General relativity is a description of relativity in accelerating reference frames, aka gravity.

Gravity is not a reference frame. There is no such thing as an 'accelerating reference frame'. Buzzword fallacies. Redefinition fallacy.

Einstein's big idea in 1907 is that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable at local scales. The acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface is 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP].

Gravity is not acceleration. Redefinition fallacy.

General relativity is all about acceleration, dummy!

No, it isn't.

Special relativity only applied to uniform motion in two or more inertial reference frames.

No it doesn't.

So Einstein knew he was going to have to extend special relativity to the more general case of non-inertial motion.

Paradox. Irrational.

Any object in angular motion, is in an accelerating frame of reference: satellites, moons, planets.

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.
There is no such thing as 'angular motion'. Buzzword fallacy.

You obviously don't understand a thing about vectors, Einstein's theories, or Newton's law of Motion or Newton's law of Gravitation or even what mass is.

 

[Cypress]

blah... blah.... blah... blah...blah...

...guilt you into abandoning your Vaudeville act.

I wish you the best of luck, but I can't lie to you about your chances. Your charade is transparent to all rational adults.

Have a great week.

Too much word salad, resentment, and petty grievances to invest time reading.

I am still laughing at your claim that there are no accelerating reference frames --> even though that was the foundation of Einstein's work on general relativity.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!

 

[Cypress]

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

Bulverism
Hasty generalization fallacy
Argument from ignorance fallacy

 

[Cypress]

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating reference frame'.
Gravity is not acceleration.

You might as well just come out and directly confess you have never had a physics class, and don't even understand Einstein's general relativity at the most rudimentary level -->

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?206611-Relativity&p=5762259#post5762259

 

[Trumpet]

Cypress can't answer any questions. Cypress hasn't answered any questions.

Remember, his schtick is to declare all questions as having been asked in bad faith, and hence are not deserving of his attention.

I just wish that the Great Thinker would enlighten us to what objective reality is, rather then, to keep trying to put someone else down, seeing that the Great Thinker possess unlimited wisdom and intellect.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I just wish that the Great Thinker would enlighten us to what objective reality is, rather then, to keep trying to put someone else down, seeing that the Great Thinker possess unlimited wisdom and intellect.

Sybil is incapable of higher thought. While he's more intelligent than most Trumpers and JPP nutjobs he's also more insane compared to most. He's the JPP equivalent of Ted Bundy or Ted Kaszynski. IMO, he's a paranoid schizophrenic.

 

[Trumpet]

Sybil is incapable of higher thought. While he's more intelligent than most Trumpers and JPP nutjobs he's also more insane compared to most. He's the JPP equivalent of Ted Bundy or Ted Kaszynski. IMO, he's a paranoid schizophrenic.

You just nailed it

 

[Cypress]

Remember, his schtick is to declare all questions as having been asked in bad faith, and hence are not deserving of his attention.

But you literally have a record of thinking you have me cornered with a "gotcha!" question, but when it blows up in your face you run away from the thread like a little girl -->
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...y-of-you-are-Christians&p=5597945#post5597945

That doesn't give me much incentive to answer your litany of 'questions'.


There's no shame in admitting you have never had a college level physics class, which you obviously haven't, and admitting you don't know the fundamentals of general relativity. That is more respectable than frantically googling for tidbits of scientific information, and trying to bullshit your way through the thread.

I'm not ashamed to admit there are lots of topics I never took a class in or read books about.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

There's no shame in admitting you have never had a college level physics class,
which you obviously haven't,
and admitting you don't know the fundamentals of general relativity.

That is more respectable than frantically googling for tidbits of scientific information,
and trying to bullshit your way through the thread.

I'm not ashamed to admit there are lots of topics I never took a class in
or read books about.

Thank you Cypress.
I've made similar admissions often on these pages.
We need to consider what we've made a genuine effort to understand
and what we've merely brushed upon in casual conversation.

In business school, we needed to know different types of math specialties,
usually less esoteric,
than the science students needed to know.

I didn't exactly breeze through statistics, for example,
even though it's not supposed to be terribly hard.

And yet, a classmate of mine who helped me with it
actually couldn't read a racing form.

He couldn't handicap horses for shit.
Just didn't care about it enough to make any effort to learn.

 

[Cypress]

Thank you Cypress.
I've made similar admissions often on these pages.
We need to consider what we've made a genuine effort to understand
and what we've merely brushed upon in casual conversation.

In business school, we needed to know different types of math specialties,
usually less esoteric,
than the science students needed to know.

I didn't exactly breeze through statistics, for example,
even though it's not supposed to be terribly hard.

And yet, a classmate of mine who helped me with it
actually couldn't read a racing form.

He couldn't handicap horses for shit.
Just didn't care about it enough to make any effort to learn.

Knowing our limitations is part of the learning process.

I do not know jack shit about business, stock market, or psychology, and it would be pointless to frantically google tidbits of information on those topics and try to bullshit my way through a thread. Owl knows way more about medical science than me, and DU is light-years ahead of me in the science of psychology. You would probably blow my doors off in the realm of business knowledge.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Knowing our limitations is part of the learning process.

I do not know jack shit about business, stock market, or psychology, and it would be pointless to frantically google tidbits of information on those topics and try to bullshit my way through a thread. Owl knows way more about medical science than me, and DU is light-years ahead of me in the science of psychology. You would probably blow my doors off in the realm of business knowledge.

At my present level of capacity, the wise thing is to limit any seriously strenuous thinking
to the assessment of donut quality.

I'm at the age, Cypress, when limitations become a moving goalpost!

Nevertheless, I have to discuss something if I wish to retain the capability of discussion,
so I wander into threads and make the innocuous comments
of a casual but nonetheless somewhat interested observer.

 

[Into the Night]

I just wish that the Great Thinker would enlighten us to what objective reality is, rather then, to keep trying to put someone else down, seeing that the Great Thinker possess unlimited wisdom and intellect.

I have already explained how 'real' and 'reality' is defined to you. RQAA. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Knowing our limitations is part of the learning process.

I do not know jack shit about business, stock market, or psychology, and it would be pointless to frantically google tidbits of information on those topics and try to bullshit my way through a thread. Owl knows way more about medical science than me, and DU is light-years ahead of me in the science of psychology. You would probably blow my doors off in the realm of business knowledge.

You are describing yourself again. Psychology is not science. The Mutt has no business knowledge, and neither do you.

 

[Into the Night]

But you literally have a record of thinking you have me cornered with a "gotcha!" question, but when it blows up in your face you run away from the thread like a little girl -->
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...y-of-you-are-Christians&p=5597945#post5597945

That doesn't give me much incentive to answer your litany of 'questions'.


There's no shame in admitting you have never had a college level physics class, which you obviously haven't, and admitting you don't know the fundamentals of general relativity. That is more respectable than frantically googling for tidbits of scientific information, and trying to bullshit your way through the thread.

I'm not ashamed to admit there are lots of topics I never took a class in or read books about.

He asked one question, and you refuse to answer it (most likely you can't answer it). That isn't a 'litany'. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Cypress]

I have already explained how 'real' and 'reality' is defined to you. RQAA. Buzzword fallacy.

Bulverism
Hasty generalization fallacy
Argument from ignorance fallacy

 

[Cypress]

At my present level of capacity, the wise thing is to limit any seriously strenuous thinking
to the assessment of donut quality.

I'm at the age, Cypress, when limitations become a moving goalpost!

Nevertheless, I have to discuss something if I wish to retain the capability of discussion,
so I wander into threads and make the innocuous comments
of a casual but nonetheless somewhat interested observer.

I've been here long enough that I need more than political cheap shots and political propogada to keep interest in this forum.

Donuts are a pretty good topic. So are pets and cigars!

 

[Cypress]

He asked one question, and you refuse to answer it (most likely you can't answer it). That isn't a 'litany'. Buzzword fallacy.

Bulverism
Hasty generalization fallacy
Argument from ignorance fallacy