Relativity is Relatively Misunderstood

[Martin Hash]

Fuck this shit. Deleting posts because you lose a debate is pathetic.

Counter argue, dude, don’t go at me. You aren’t required to be convinced, this is for entertainment.

[Speaker to Animals]

Fuck this shit. Deleting posts because you lose a debate is pathetic.

Counter argue, dude, don’t go at me. You aren’t required to be convinced, this is for entertainment.

I did counterargue and you deleted it!

Fuck you.

Stop deleting posts just because you lost a debate.

I posted three more times and you deleted it each time.

[Martin Hash]

Fuck this shit. Deleting posts because you lose a debate is pathetic.

Counter argue, dude, don’t go at me. You aren’t required to be convinced, this is for entertainment.

I did counterargue and you deleted it!

Fuck you.

Stop deleting posts just because you lost a debate.

I posted three more times and you deleted it each time.

The debate continues, except you keep spamming my thread. Fife ain’t a believer but he isn’t going at me. Farmer is offering difficult to counter examples. You, though, how are the dozen posts of yours I deleted entertaining?

[Speaker to Animals]

Then don't respond to my posts, because it's obvious you are like a child who deletes people's posts when you lose a debate. It's fucking ridiculous.

What is the point of anybody debating you if you just delete their posts when you lose? Did you like it when people treated you that way on Facebook?

[Martin Hash]

As a matter of fact, I didn’t delete on FB. My MISTAKE. I sure as hell will next time. I will delete every post in this thread where you call me names or attack me.

[GloryofGreece]

Then don't respond to my posts, because it's obvious you are like a child who deletes people's posts when you lose a debate. It's fucking ridiculous.

What is the point of anybody debating you if you just delete their posts when you lose? Did you like it when people treated you that way on Facebook?

He deleted a post I made a few days ago. First one I'm aware of that he did. I was calling him out for being egotistical and questioning whether he believed what he had just typed.

I shouldn't have posted it for two reasons. 1). It was insulting of me and 2). this is his forum. That's the game he plays and he plays to win. I can't really knock him for it and he should be afforded some deference since he's keeping this thing going.

I still think what I said was overall correct but it wasn't the best way of expressing it. Either way he is usually very civil or seems to be. Many many people do not want to conversate or debate. I am glad I have people here that will comment on what I'm saying and push back even when and especially when they don't agree reasonably. I use to think I was a Libertarian now partly b/c of this forum I know I never really was. That's one example of thing I am specifically grateful for on this website.

[katarn]

Bullets go the same speed as airplanes which is what I was comparing to.

The relativistic effect is observed in long-duration spaceflight. It's a known factor in satellite technology (GPS, etc).

The atomic clocks fall out of sync with ground-based clocks, at a steady rate.

I'm just willing to take on the airplanes prove time travel people right now. Though I suspect once I learn more about the satellite adjustments, I'll determine it's the same thing.

p.s. Right off the bat, does anyone know if atomic decay is a constant (I mean an absolute constant) like light speed?

That's actually an interesting p.s. question. Atomic decay has always been presumed a constant so far as I've heard, except in the theories of young Earth creationists. The idea is one pillar of the standard age of Earth is the atomic dating systems, like radiocarbon (50,000 years) and uranium (millions of years) dating, and their idea is that if the decay rate slows then the dated object's presumed ages are wrong and thy are much younger.

Of course, even if that were the case (but the evidence they provide for the idea is less corroborated than the Kavanaugh case) it doesn't go far to justify a young Earth, considering analysis of light from space and the geological ideas on how long it takes rock layers to compile.

[Fife]

Atoms have mass.

[katarn]

If you think you can falsify general relativity, then my suggestion is to write a paper and submit it to an appropriate journal for peer review.

Dude, I have 3 doctorates, and am the only simultaneously licensed doctor, lawyer, accountant & engineer in the the world, and that gives me no credibility. Getting another doctorate will add exactly zero to that credibility. I need to be famous, and when I'm famous, doctorates in anything are gold, and apply to all fields.

I think I can relate to you, Dr Hash. I can't boast the same accomplishments (though we'll see what the future holds), but I don't understand your idea here in relation to what StA said. Your doctorates prove you are extremely capable of learning and so on, absolutely, but an appeal to the effect of doctorates on public opinion and public credibility has absolutely nothing to do with your credibility on physics. Maybe I'm misreading your intent with this reply, but an ethos appeal falls flat logically when the authority is in a different subject matter. Your doctorates might help you influence people if you become famous, but they won't inherently make you any more right. To prove your ideas in the scientific court of as-close-to-fact-as-we-can-get is a different animal than the public court of opinion.

[Martin Hash]

The first question I would pose is that isotope decay may also be relativistic. It’s because lightspeed is constant that all these seeming anomalies occur; if that applies to radioactive decay too, then, baby, we got some space-time issues to work out.