Notices
Results 1 to 54 of 54
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By Physicist
  • 1 Post By KJW
  • 1 Post By Beer w/Straw
  • 1 Post By Gerry Nightingale

Thread: MarkMason's Conundrum.

  1. #1 MarkMason's Conundrum. 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear MarkMason,

    You are tackling the Einstein question logically & naively. You are clearly expecting a sane answer - but you ain't going to get it from the Einsteinians!
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMason View Post
    Hawking says that the person experiencing time dilation sees the other's clocks moving FASTER. But relativity should imply that the person experiencing time dilation perceives the outside clocks going SLOWER relative to him. There is no privileged frame of reference.



    [If I travel close to the speed of light relative to an observer, why should MY TIME dilate and not his? After all, there are no preferred reference frames, so relative to me, HE is moving close to the speed of light. If BOTH of our clocks dilate relative to each other, then they should be in agreement!

    Seriously, is Einstein that blind?]
    Yes, Einstein IS that blind - & he & his supporters expect you to be to!

    To grasp the Einstein mentality, read Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra part IV on the Conscientious Man who adopts narrow logical ideas in the way that Einsteinians do. Nietzsche attacked the mentality that would lead to Einstein-type thinking 20 years after his collapse into insanity.

    The only consistent Einsteinian answer is of course parallel & daughter universes for each & every mutually moving observer. Clock A is faster than clock B when seen by clock A observer; clock B faster than clock A when seen by clock B observer - two mutually refuting situations 'requiring' parallel universes to accommodate both scenarios.

    Hence SR is complete & utter schlock. What I am trying to do on this website is to get people to reconstruct the situation and work out the correct answer for themselves i.e. that the nature of light has not been properly understood. When you do understand it, you will also find the arrow of time built into nature!

    Look forward to your reply.

    TFOLZO

    PS: I haven't looked at the Hawking video but I can guess the BS-line that he going to take, avoiding the logical paradox & parallel/daughter universe implications.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    Hence SR is complete & utter schlock.
    Spoken like someone who truly doesn't know physics nor relativity. Had you had a solid background in physics and studied relativity very hard then you'd never make such assertions like this. Very smart men have proved it was all correct beyond doubt. And by "proved" I mean it in the sense that once the postulates are taken as a given then the rest is proven in the sense that a theorem is proven, i.e. all with very solid logic. And by a huge number of experts. And by proven we don't mean proven in the sense that anybody has been brainwashed as I've seen so many crackpots claim.
    Last edited by Physicist; 08-02-2014 at 12:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to MarkMason, re: your #1 post.

    Hello and Cheers! (I wrote you a long reply...and my "cookie time allotment" ran out)

    Regarding "Time" in frame comparisons is just about impossible...the way you "framed" the question!<(couldn't resist)


    IMO, I would just "throw the clock under the bed" and forget it. Really.

    I cannot envision a circumstance in which "tick-rates" or "yardsticks" will form a specific mandate with respect to reality, regardless of how "accurate" they are.

    ......

    "Every frame-of-condition is true to itself" is about the best one can hope for, esp. in the comparison of arbitrary time values and Relativistic velocities.

    A clock or yardstick is only a measuring tool, nothing else...it cannot "define" a given reality by itself.


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Well, MarkMason,

    I won't reply until you return - but judging by the replies so far you should not have too much trouble dealing with them. E.g. Physicist is like an angler-fish waving his luminous lure while sonorously preaching "come towards the light".

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    It takes a non-zero time for light to travel from me to you and from you to me. Therefore, when you look at me, you are seeing me at an earlier time to you. Similarly, when I look at you, I am seeing you at an earlier time to me. In other words, we are both seeing each other at an earlier time to ourselves. Is this a paradox? No, but you should try to work out why it isn't. Then maybe time dilation won't seem as strange.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Now that highlighted claim is totally false, KJW...
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    It takes a non-zero time for light to travel from me to you and from you to me. Therefore, when you look at me, you are seeing me at an earlier time to you. Similarly, when I look at you, I am seeing you at an earlier time to me. In other words, we are both seeing each other at an earlier time to ourselves. Is this a paradox? No, but you should try to work out why it isn't. Then maybe time dilation won't seem as strange.
    ...since your claim absolutely relies upon the reader naively confusing image with reality. Because two observers see each other's image from a time very recently past, this does not mean that mutual time dilation is operative between the observers.

    All you are doing is smuggling in the old logical-paradox-engendering drivel of SR in another way, i.e. by implication:

    Observer A is older than observer B, AND
    observer B is older than observer A.

    As the two situations are mutually inconstant, place each situation in a parallel or daughter universe!

    Until Poincare, Lorentz & Big Al Einstein came along, everyone agreed with Galileo & Newton that time flowed equally throughout the universe, preventing the logical paradoxes arising from mutual time dilation. Big Al Einstein prospered only during the Prohibition Era when Travel Faster-than-Light was forbidden, by getting everyone tanked on methanol-induced parallel-universe-fantasising hooch - but Prohibition is coming to an end!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Now that highlighted claim is totally false, KJW... since your claim absolutely relies upon the reader naively confusing image with reality. Because two observers see each other's image from a time very recently past, this does not mean that mutual time dilation is operative between the observers.
    I'm not suggesting that my example is the same as time dilation. The point of my example is to demonstrate that an apparent paradox (I see you earlier than me and you see me earlier than you) need not be a paradox at all. In the case of time dilation there is also no paradox because there are four distinct time intervals being compared, not two. In other words, it is not A>B AND B>A, but A>B' AND B>A' (A' is not the same as A and B' is not the same as B).
    Jilan likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Junior Member pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    ...
    Observer A is older than observer B, AND
    observer B is older than observer A.
    ...
    There is no paradox, as there is no "AND".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Greetings pzkpfw - which I suppose is something the cat says.

    Observer A is older than observer B, AND
    observer B is older than observer A.



    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    There is no paradox, as there is no "AND".
    Fair enough - and the reason for that is old observer A & younger observer B are in one parallel universe, while

    old observer B & younger observer A are in the other parallel universe.

    Well & good if you agree with me.


    But if not then you're a bad ol' puddy cat indeed!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by ZOLOFT
    Until Poincare, Lorentz & Big Al Einstein came along, everyone agreed with Galileo & Newton that time flowed equally throughout the universe, preventing the logical paradoxes arising from mutual time dilation.
    ...until you came along with your colored crayons to prove them wrong....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    That is a deceitful misrepresentation KJW.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I'm not suggesting that my example is the same as time dilation. The point of my example is to demonstrate that an apparent paradox (I see you earlier than me and you see me earlier than you) need not be a paradox at all.
    There is no paradox in "I see you earlier than me & you see me earlier than you" because the light reflected off the face of each takes time to reach the other.

    The case of time dilation, supposedly caused by mutual motion, is entirely different. (By X>Y you evidently mean "X is older than Y")

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    In the case of time dilation there is also no paradox because there are four distinct time intervals being compared, not two. In other words, it is not A>B AND B>A, but A>B' AND B>A' (A' is not the same as A and B' is not the same as B).
    Hence in the time dilation case when A & B are in mutual motion & passing by each other - after having been assigned a start time common to both - we have:

    A>B seen by A.
    B>A seen by B.

    In order to 'explain away' the contradiction, you have to claim that it is

    A>B' seen by A and
    B>A' seen by B.

    A' & B' merely signify in abstract terminology that we now have parallel or daughter universes.

    In one universe A>B' seen by A; in the other universe B>A' seen by B.

    ONLY in this way can I make any sense of the mathematical jargon you have thrown up.

    Hopefully you will not tell me that A, B, A' & B' are all found in one universe! Otherwise you'll be another bad ol' puddy cat like that alluded to in the post above.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to AIP's this thread, re: observations.

    Hey TFOLZO...oops, you did it again!

    There is NO paradox in relation to A and B w/ respect to "time lag"...each frame to each observer is exactly correct. It is only when an attempt is made to correlate the two that

    there is "big trouble in little China!" The paradox is the result of mathematical addition of these two observational states, NOT an actual difference of "I'm moving or standing still, and you

    can't tell which is true because of "frame-dragging of time" between us...this is actually just a paradox in thought, not in reality!

    ......

    "Time" did not vary in relation to the observation...it just "seems" that way when the two observers "compare notes" in terms of "let's add all of this up, and see what happens!"


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    That is a deceitful misrepresentation KJW.
    A deceitful misrepresentation of what? I never claimed my example was the same as time dilation. I just gave an example that seems to be paradoxical in the same way as time dilation but isn't paradoxical, to suggest that time dilation might also be not paradoxical.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    There is no paradox in "I see you earlier than me & you see me earlier than you" because the light reflected off the face of each takes time to reach the other.
    That was my point: to show that "I see you earlier than me & you see me earlier than you" is not paradoxical for rather obvious reasons. The reason being obvious was part of the point I was making. It was intended to make one reconsider regarding time dilation as a paradox by suggesting that the reasoning may be flawed.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    In order to 'explain away' the contradiction, you have to claim that it is

    A>B' seen by A and
    B>A' seen by B.
    ...
    Hopefully you will not tell me that A, B, A' & B' are all found in one universe!
    They are all found in one spacetime. A and A' are the same observer at different times (similarly for B and B'). Observers A and B do not share the same simultaneity and that is why there are four time intervals being compared rather than two.

    I should remark that "as seen by A" and "as seen by B" are not necessary as the time comparisons are proper time comparisons and therefore agreed by all observers.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Much better KJW, when we remove the false inference between time dilation & common ordinary 'gazing into the past' when looking in another face or at the stars!

    TFOLZO: Hopefully you will not tell me that A, B, A' & B' are all found in one universe!



    KJW:They are all found in one spacetime.

    TFOLZO: Spacetime is part of the meaningless relativity gibberish, though if it covers "multiple universes" I could accept the phrase as mere trivial idiocy. But not the abstractions below.

    KJW: A and A' are the same observer at different times (similarly for B and B'). Observers A and B do not share the same simultaneity and that is why there are four time intervals being compared rather than two.

    TFOLZO: No! A & A' and B & B' are not the same observers A and B respectively "at different times". What is seen by A of B and B of A are NOT the same; they are mutually inconsistent. You are wishing me to adopt the paradox & falsehood that A>B and B>A by pretending that I do not see the inner inconstancy of your logic. Nothing doing Charlie Chop-logic! That is just part of the SR-BS forever preached by Einstein & his media chorus of intellectual castrati!

    KJW: I should remark that "as seen by A" and "as seen by B" are not necessary as the time comparisons are proper time comparisons and therefore agreed by all observers.

    TFOLZO: That is an evasion of the issue. "Agreement by all observers" is not enough. Even cincirob will tell you that science is NOT a democratic process so is not reducible to mere intersubjective agreement but must arise from factual evidence 'out there'.

    Even Einstein makes sure in the appendix to his popularization Relativity: the Special & the General Theory (=RSGT) to have the A and B observers moving relatively to each other, then photograph & measure one another. Einstein did it there. Therefore I am obliged do it here, in order to demonstrate the inner BS of Einstein's Special Relativity - using Big Al Einstein's own procedures!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    KJW: A and A' are the same observer at different times (similarly for B and B'). Observers A and B do not share the same simultaneity and that is why there are four time intervals being compared rather than two.

    TFOLZO: No! A & A' and B & B' are not the same observers A and B respectively "at different times".
    Of course A & A' (and B & B') are different times. A and B are at time T, A' and B' are at time T(1–v˛/c˛)˝. Thus A>B' and B>A'.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    A and A' are what are measured from each frame taking into account the distance travelled by light. It is a reckoning/calculation based on what we see, but it not what we see. The reckonings are symmetrical as no frame is preferred. Clocks in different inertial frames will not actually run at different speeds. The laws of physics are the same in each inertial frame of reference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to AIP's this thread, re: observations.

    Hey TFOLZO...oops, you did it again!

    There is NO paradox in relation to A and B w/ respect to "time lag"...each frame to each observer is exactly correct. It is only when an attempt is made to correlate the two that

    there is "big trouble in little China!" The paradox is the result of mathematical addition of these two observational states, NOT an actual difference of "I'm moving or standing still, and you

    can't tell which is true because of "frame-dragging of time" between us...this is actually just a paradox in thought, not in reality!

    ......

    "Time" did not vary in relation to the observation...it just "seems" that way when the two observers "compare notes" in terms of "let's add all of this up, and see what happens!"


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Highlighting your quoted words, GerryN, I can only conclude that SR is some bizarre form of optical or calculational illusion hence if we discard SR we can get rid of the discrepancy when two observers "compare notes".

    Otherwise we're stuck with the paradox A>B (A older than B), B>A - two mutually incompatible observations which CANNOT be resolved objectively (so have to be 'dumped' into parallel-&-daughter universes).

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    That piece of BS...
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Of course A & A' (and B & B') are different times. A and B are at time T, A' and B' are at time T(1–v˛/c˛)˝. Thus A>B' and B>A'.
    ...necessarily implies parallel & daughter universes since if A' & B' are merely A & B at different times you still end up with A>B (A older than B) and B>A (B older than A), a physical impossibility in one universe.

    The question here is the mutual ageing of A & B with motion, not merely instants of observations. The deceitful Einsteinian procedure of localizing events to a particular time & place is the cause of not seeing the overall picture i.e. a quintessentially modern Jewish procedure outlined by Yehuda Elkana (p. 211 in Einstein: Historical & Cultural Perspectives ed. Gerald Holton & Yehuda Elkana, Dover, 1982).

    When coming to compare different “worlds” or wishing to translate from one world to another, people discover that there is no easily available external-to-all world (a context of contexts) with regard to which absolute criteria of translation and comparison can be developed. Then the choices are seen to be either to decide that “our world” is absolute reality – the external-to-all world (a basically religious view) or to decide that, realism having failed, relativism holds.
    I.e. the choices are religion or relativism (= relativity in this context) - i.e. both choices perverted & bigoted. No wonder Gaza is being bombed & shelled repeatedly!

    But A>B & B>A possible of course in spacetime as you say - the fantasy realm inhabited by Einsteinians who favour it over physical reality whenever they can.

    Hence the point, contra Yehuda's deceitful phraseology, is that there IS an easily available external-to-all world (a context of contexts) - and these are space and time, objective space & time which lead to NO logical paradoxes such as those of SR.

    The relationship of matter, space & time is thus prepositional i.e. Matter is IN space which in turn is IN time.

    In that way all the confusions of Einstein & his chorus of speculators (what Lenard & German physicists called 'Jewish Physics') are discarded in toto in favour of physics of objective physical reality.

    Incredible it is the arrogance with which Einstein's SR has been shovelled down the necks of people - duping those who liked it into becoming preachers thereof. Even in my high school this BS was forced down the necks of matriculation-year students!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The highlighted quote is just doublethink on your part - or "two-tier thinking" in Elkana's terminology (see my posting above).
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    A and A' are what are measured from each frame taking into account the distance travelled by light. It is a reckoning/calculation based on what we see, but it [is] not what we see. The reckonings are symmetrical as no frame is preferred. Clocks in different inertial frames will not actually run at different speeds. The laws of physics are the same in each inertial frame of reference.
    If no frame is preferred then we have mutual ageing when two observers (A & B) pass one another i.e. A becomes older than B according to A; B becomes older than A according to B. IOW "clocks in different inertial frames MUST run at different speeds, according to SR-BS, when observations between the frames take place." Hence your & Einstein's claims contradict themselves and are not worth the paper (or electronic media) they are printed on.

    Merely reducing this paradoxical babbling to the "laws of physics" merely demonstrates that modern physics & its laws are utterly perverted.

    They are perverted because they cannot explain the arrow of time in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) explains this however. It shows that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is built into light itself. The separation of wavelength-members of the Doppler Ensemble over time demonstrates the arrow of time in each & every photon.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by ZOLOFT
    Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) explains this however. It shows that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is built into light itself. The separation of wavelength-members of the Doppler Ensemble over time demonstrates the arrow of time in each & every photon.
    You skipped your meds again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Well Jack, at least I go & check my data first...
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    You skipped your meds again.
    ...rather than ignorantly scream out phrases like "Tesla was Croatian."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Time to take away your colored crayons, you may hurt yourself with them, Zoloft.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #18 post.

    Where did I mention SR with regard to the two observers? You put this in...I did not. The "A" & "B" are NOT moving at any significant quotient of c, nor is the distance between them some

    vast gulf...this is "plain Jane" GR here, nothing fancy. (why do you keep doing this...adding further conditions like Relativistic speeds?)

    .....

    I still insist that time is relative to each observer, for each frame...and I have serious doubt anyone can disprove or invalidate this concept.

    The real question remains...does "Time" itself dilate in response to velocity? My answer? NO. MATTER alters as a result of velocity in a given gravimetric-field (as per Lorentz and GR) not

    time itself...time is an abstract, NOT A REAL THING! It is whatever "you" or "I" say it is...pretty simple if you look at it "as it is".


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #18 post.

    Where did I mention SR with regard to the two observers? You put this in...I did not. The "A" & "B" are NOT moving at any significant quotient of c, nor is the distance between them some

    vast gulf...this is "plain Jane" GR here, nothing fancy. (why do you keep doing this...adding further conditions like Relativistic speeds?)
    .....I would have thought the issue to be SR, not GR, but that is of minor import. Far more important are your comments below.

    I still insist that time is relative to each observer, for each frame...and I have serious doubt anyone can disprove or invalidate this concept.

    Well I can agree there since the philosophy you are hinting at here is that of Max Stirner, an extreme solipsism.

    The real question remains...does "Time" itself dilate in response to velocity? My answer? NO.

    Well you have my 100% support on that GerryN!


    MATTER alters as a result of velocity in a given gravimetric-field (as per Lorentz and GR) not time itself...time is an abstract, NOT A REAL THING!

    A strange definition of matter you have, but I agree that time itself is a 'thing' of a different kind; it is ontologically separate from matter. But your next comment on time, combines two issues.

    It is whatever "you" or "I" say it is...pretty simple if you look at it "as it is".

    Our measurements of time are conventional e.g. the 24-hr rotation of the earth & the distribution of time zones on the earth. Which is not to say that time is reducible to mere convention and that it does not exist 'of itself'.

    TFOLZO


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    in reply to TFOLZO, re: your #18 post.

    When I mentioned "matter", that means EVERY bit of three-dimensional actualities, such as atoms and other "bits" as they exist in a given FoR. I am not including any "outside" the frame

    factors...what do you see "strange" in this?

    .....

    All "measurements" of any kind are "frame dependent". (I don't see any way to get around this, no matter what SR is supposed to imply! I think people just "modify" SR as they go

    along...just "bend it there and adjust here" to insure a good fit!

    .....

    A.E. never agreed to any of the "bending" and "adjusting" of SR by the Copenhagen/Bonn crowd, as in "In Gottingen they believe in it...I don't" in response to questions from friends of what

    he thought of where QM theory was headed.

    (You heap for too many ashes on Albert's head for SR problems, TFOL...he is NOT the one who created all the "hoopla" in much of modern theory)


    (Thanks for reading!)<my little tag-line, that's all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Relevant good questions Gerry N.in reply to TFOLZO, re: your #18 post.

    When I mentioned "matter", that means EVERY bit of three-dimensional actualities, such as atoms and other "bits" as they exist in a given FoR. I am not including any "outside" the frame

    factors...what do you see "strange" in this?

    .....Light, neutrinos, electromagnetic & gravitational fields are all matter for sure, but what is NOT matter is space itself. There are ontological issues involved i.e. the status of matter, space & time in physics.

    All "measurements" of any kind are "frame dependent". (I don't see any way to get around this, no matter what SR is supposed to imply! I think people just "modify" SR as they go

    along...just "bend it there and adjust here" to insure a good fit!

    .....Exactly right, Gerry N. You've hit the nail on the head with the SR procedures. All 'measurements' are indeed "frame dependent" but the ontological issue alluded to above is the basis for ascertaining what these frames are.

    A.E. never agreed to any of the "bending" and "adjusting" of SR by the Copenhagen/Bonn crowd, as in "In Gottingen they believe in it...I don't" in response to questions from friends of what

    he thought of where QM theory was headed.

    Yes, he did not like the Copenhagenists of quantum theory, but they naively accepted his SR nevertheless. What is not usually known is that there are three interpretations of Quantum Theory.

    1) Type A local hidden variables (= local realism): (the Einstein-preferred interpretation, shared by Popper).
    2) Type B nonlocal hidden variables (Blokhintsev & Bohm etc.): This is the correct answer.
    3) Type C complementarity - the Copenhagen Interpretation.


    (You heap for too many ashes on Albert's head for SR problems, TFOL...he is NOT the one who created all the "hoopla" in much of modern theory)

    That is only true in that quantum theory is the truly important theory - and it was fouled up by Bohr, Heisenberg etc. But Einstein shares in the blame here since the "parallel & daughter universe interpretation of quantum theory" (Hugh Everett's) has its true source in Big Al Einstein's Prohibition Era Pseudo-physics.

    (Thanks for reading!)<my little tag-line, that's all.

    Thanks for writing!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #27  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #26 post.

    I consider "space" and "light" factors as invariables in the frame-set, so "time" can be discounted...space and light are either "there" or not "there". I cannot see how to apply a time factor

    to something which exists as a mathematical property only, an 'abstract"...i.e., the numbers work, but in relation to what? How does one give "space" significant meaning?


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #28  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    I can see what you mean, Gerry N, since time is not a 'thing' in the same way as space & light are.

    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #26 post.

    I consider "space" and "light" factors as invariables in the frame-set, so "time" can be discounted...space and light are either "there" or not "there". I cannot see how to apply a time factor

    to something which exists as a mathematical property only, an 'abstract"...i.e., the numbers work, but in relation to what? How does one give "space" significant meaning?


    (Thanks for reading!)

    I find the easiest way to conceive of it is that space is merely there, unchanging but a reference frame - 'invariable' as you say.

    Light, however, like ordinary matter, can be conceived as a static picture - but in order to have any motion, any action at all, one has to put in time as an INDEPENDENT VARIABLE. When we see a speed advisory sign saying 20 miles per hour, this sign is advising our driver of a complicated piece of matter (car or truck) about the driving conditions ahead - using space and time as the fundamental frame for such details.

    There are of course other factors not included here - is there a curve, a poor road surface, a school or a town coming up?

    Thanks for writing!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #29  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Careful, TFOLZO, you may be hurting yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #30  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    That piece of BS...
    ...necessarily implies parallel & daughter universes since if A' & B' are merely A & B at different times you still end up with A>B (A older than B) and B>A (B older than A), a physical impossibility in one universe.
    You missed the part about space and time being relative, rather than absolute, didn't you?

    This is only a physical impossibility (a paradox) if you get these results when both A and B are in the same frame, which never happens. If there is motion between A and B, then each will calculate the other to be time-dilated in relation to themselves in a way that is symmetrical, as described in your quote. This is because space and time are relative, rather than absolute. The only way to get A and B into the same frame is to break the symmetry, so the paradox you are arguing against is never realised, it never becomes physical, and thus there is no physical impossibility to deal with.

    Your argument is still relying on an unphysical "God's eye view" of the situation - a view that does not exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #31  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    You are merely applying the nonsense-dogma of SR
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    You missed the part about space and time being relative, rather than absolute, didn't you?
    Space & time are NOT relative to each other nor to matter. That claim merely generates the paradoxical absurdities of SR. (Absolute space is the Newtonian misconception, not shared by Galileo, and which led to the stagnant ether misconception & the expected positive MM experiment). Time however is absolute and flows uniformly across the universe - without this dogma one can get only Lorentzian & Einsteinian logical paradoxes, a situation that has destroyed theoretical physics & crippled our ability to understand nature so as to combat the energy crisis. (Still there is the upside that this situation, once identified, will lead to the Einsteinians being exterminated outright across the world).

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    This is only a physical impossibility (a paradox) if you get these results when both A and B are in the same frame, which never happens. If there is motion between A and B, then each will calculate the other to be time-dilated in relation to themselves in a way that is symmetrical, as described in your quote. This is because space and time are relative, rather than absolute. The only way to get A and B into the same frame is to break the symmetry, so the paradox you are arguing against is never realised, it never becomes physical, and thus there is no physical impossibility to deal with.

    Your argument is still relying on an unphysical "God's eye view" of the situation - a view that does not exist.
    What matters is your frame-up definition of frame.

    Given then A & B are physical entities (recorders, observers) in the universe then their mutual motion will NOT cause either time dilation nor length contraction. I.e. TD&LC are merely nonsensical concepts concocted either by SR or to explain away the null MM experiment.

    The only reason that in your 'Minkowski spacetime' no paradox occurs is that Minkowski spacetime is NOT a physical entity but abstract drivel. Your A, B, A' & B' do not physically exist in the universe - that is the only reason no paradox ever occurs to you. There is no motion at all in Minkowski spacetime but merely an infinite number of worldliness crossing as each line passes thru another - an abstract representation of parallel intersecting universes but lacking the honesty to admit the implication for a physical (sic) interpretation.

    You also misrepresent the "God's eye view" situation since God (in Christian teaching) is outside time & space (yet another absurdity) so treats the world as deterministic, which I do not. Perverted phrases like that reveal that you do not understand philosophy; rather you serve up the stale misconceptions taught at universities since Einstein's time.

    The actual material world is not deterministic - the past does not control the future, since human will can invent & create since the universe in its most fundamental structure is DISORDERED (i.e. NOT mathematically representable).

    Einstein (& modern materialists) however treats the world as deterministic - following Spinoza - since Einstein's intent is to render people passive, confused & submissive - because they are trapped in worldliness, completely unable to think or to combat the 'Jewish physics' nonsense.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #32  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post

    Einstein (& modern materialists) however treats the world as deterministic - following Spinoza - since Einstein's intent is to render people passive, confused & submissive - because they are trapped in worldliness, completely unable to think or to combat the 'Jewish physics' nonsense.

    TFOLZO
    Quoting from "Mein Kampf" or from the hamas textbooks again? Or is it Ahmedinajad? Or your idol, Philipp Lenard?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #33  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    TFOLZO: Einstein (& modern materialists) however treats the world as deterministic - following Spinoza - since Einstein's intent is to render people passive, confused & submissive - because they are trapped in worldliness, completely unable to think or to combat the 'Jewish physics' nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Quoting from "Mein Kampf" or from the hamas textbooks again? Or is it Ahmedinajad? Or your idol, Philipp Lenard?
    Einstein makes his own attitude clear in Ideas & Opinions p. 39 (Crown, 1954)
    A God who rewards & punishes is inconceivable to him [the believer in Einstein's 'cosmic religious feeling'] for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the actions it undergoes.
    Hence Einstein's cursing the Germans after WW2 is hypocritical since according to Einstein people are mere machines programmed from the Big Bang to do whatever they do! But all that Einsteinian BS is for you to believe in x0x, just as you believe that Tesla is Croatian!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #34  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    There is no room for neo-nazis like you in a science forum, TFOLZO. Crawl back into the sewer hole you came from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #35  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your last posts.

    Where do you find "disordered" anywhere in the Universe? Are you stating you feel there is some validity to "Chaos Theory?" ( I cannot find any validity for "chaos" at all)

    .....

    Einstein believed and promulgated the idea that "people are programmed?"...I have read EVERYTHING I could find concerning A.E.'s beliefs and philosophies over a period of 40 years (and

    I am including all his detractors also) and I never seen anything to give credence to such a simplistic statement.

    You forget Albert either knew personally or had met many of the persons you quote, and none them (that I have read) have ever accused A.E. of such a poor understanding of human

    nature! They may have detested him on a "personal" level...but I have serious doubt that any would attribute such an infantile outlook to Albert! (maybe you are thinking of our previous

    president "George the shrub", a sterling example of how even the mentally challenged can aspire to "greatness" as a "sock-puppet")

    Do you really think Albert was not familiar w/ the writings of Neitsztche<edit spelling< and the implications of "man and superman" mythos philosophies? He read them all, and understood

    what they meant...as I do. (I am pleased that I have no ambition to exert a personal influence on the world...one Hitler was enough!)

    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #36  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your last posts.

    Where do you find "disordered" anywhere in the Universe? Are you stating you feel there is some validity to "Chaos Theory?" ( I cannot find any validity for "chaos" at all)

    .....Chaos, when treated by science means 'deterministic chaos' where everything appear chaotic but is actually determined completely by interacting factors - hence is amenable to mathematical modelling. I am not referring to that kind of chaos. Rather I mean authentic 'chaos', disorder.

    Disorder is everywhere you look - bricks are produced to order but the grains & flaws in each & every brick are different. Read Ilya Prigogine's works to find out how the world is fundamentally disordered even though there is causality everywhere.


    Einstein believed and promulgated the idea that "people are programmed?"...I have read EVERYTHING I could find concerning A.E.'s beliefs and philosophies over a period of 40 years (and

    I am including all his detractors also) and I never seen anything to give credence to such a simplistic statement.

    I already quoted Einstein's own words above. Clearly you have not read enough Einstein. Here is another quote from his I&O (Ideas & Opinions) p. 47.

    EINSTEIN: .... We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity.
    IOW Einstein teaches merely that animals, people, implicitly even Germans, are just preprogrammed machines mindlessly carrying out a predetermined order. He called this drivel his "cosmic religious feeling."

    So get his work and read it for yourself, Gerry N!


    You forget Albert either knew personally or had met many of the persons you quote, and none them (that I have read) have ever accused A.E. of such a poor understanding of human

    nature! They may have detested him on a "personal" level...but I have serious doubt that any would attribute such an infantile outlook to Albert! (maybe you are thinking of our previous

    president "George the shrub", a sterling example of how even the mentally challenged can aspire to "greatness" as a "sock-puppet")

    Einstein's phrase "cosmic religious feeling" was part of his philosophical agenda to try to manipulate people into his way of thinking. Whether he actually believed it himself is another question. Many actually shared Einstein's pacifistic & socialistic pretensions and thus his attempts to seduce the masses into passivity and acceptance of crooked elites. Probably he didn't believe his own agenda, proven by his cursing of Germans, praise of the Zionist ideal (as opposed e.g. to his negative appraisal of Menachem Begin) and disparaging of Palestinians as 'bandits' & 'outlaws' - Einstein's bigotry a direct cause of Israel's arrogance today.

    Do you really think Albert was not familiar w/ the writings of Nietzsche and the implications of "man and superman" mythos philosophies? He read them all, and understood

    what they meant...as I do. (I am pleased that I have no ambition to exert a personal influence on the world...one Hitler was enough!)

    (Thanks for reading!)

    I have no doubt Einstein had indeed read Nietzsche but Einstein NEVER discussed him - and that's no surprise given that Nietzsche's whole philosophical stance was diametrically opposed to Einstein's.

    Einstein merely wished to manipulate the dumb goyim - and non-Zionist Jews - into servile acceptance of the rule of financial elites (with Zionist Jews at the top of course) - but capitalism was providing him with what he wanted anyway. This is the situation we have today. Nietzsche however saw that the democratic levelling mentality of our era has merely handed power to a financial elite that rule parliaments & presidencies from behind the scene. Read Nietzsche's early essay 'The Greek State' which lays out this position with exemplary clarity.

    Thanks for writing.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #37  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post

    Einstein merely wished to manipulate the dumb goyim - and non-Zionist Jews - into servile acceptance of the rule of financial elites (with Zionist Jews at the top of course) - but capitalism was providing him with what he wanted anyway. This is the situation we have today. Nietzsche however saw that the democratic levelling mentality of our era has merely handed power to a financial elite that rule parliaments & presidencies from behind the scene. Read Nietzsche's early essay 'The Greek State' which lays out this position with exemplary clarity.
    You cannot attack an experimental science solely on a philosophical basis. Einstein did science. The only more notable scientist I believe was Newton.

    I don't know just what you posted but you appear to have a political agenda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #38  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    One needs a solid philosophical basis to attack Einstein, since Einstein's so-called science - relativity - is actually philosophy, as even many scientists realized when he first published.

    Relativity (SR & GR) is philosophy, not science, because it redefines the nature of space & time, muddling them together (spacetime) & claiming that at bottom, space, time & matter are all reducible to 'stuff' (Stoff) in the manner of Spinoza's philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    You cannot attack an experimental science solely on a philosophical basis. Einstein did science. The only more notable scientist I believe was Newton.

    I don't know just what you posted but you appear to have a political agenda.
    Perfectly legitimate! After all, Einstein too had a political agenda, to manipulate people into believing in the universe as finite & predetermined. Hence for Einsteinians what is infinite can only be mathematics & or the Supernatural. Most vote for the Supernatural - since mathematics is only an abstraction, not something living - hence the savage return to religion in our day i.e. since the Einstein Era from 1919, notably the savagery of the Jewish Zionists from 1919 onward, against which Moslem Fundamentalism is in the main merely a reaction - coupled with Moslems' own stupid beliefs in that they combine the Monotheist nonsense with Einstein's BS that they believe (naively, like you) to be science.

    Newton too caused a major confusion, against the authentic Galilean understanding. Newton introduced absolute space, calling the "the sensorium of God", his absolute space being identified with the stagnant aether & absolute reference frame (ARF) of the late 19th century. The true physicist is Galileo - and Galilean relativity: all motion is relative.

    So think on that BWS - or will you just scull the beer without the straw????

    TFOLZO

    PS: Newton had strange religious beliefs, being an Arian (like Jehovah's Witnesses), asserting that the Holy Spirit was merely the power of God while Jesus the Son of God was just a divinely-inspired human. Newton's successor William Whiston, also an Arian, was actually quite friendly to Islam, which holds similar beliefs to Arianism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #39  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    I believe your hatred for Jews has blinded you. I do not live in the Middle East, I live in Canada, but maybe the tension is corrupting your thinking.

    I cannot say anything. It has already been said by others...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #40  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Yeah, as a Canadian you can booze all you want because you hide behind the USA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    I believe your hatred for Jews has blinded you. I do not live in the Middle East, I live in Canada, but maybe the tension is corrupting your thinking.

    I cannot say anything. It has already been said by others...
    I live in Australia so when war hots up and Australia supports West & Israel, all out war will break out - with Indonesia, Malaysia & Bangladesh invading Australia in response to Australia's support for USA nuking a Moslem country (Iran) - and Indonesia alone has 10 times Australia's population. We have redneck Judaeo-Christian Zionists running this country as you do in Canada - & Einstein's filth has been tipped down the collective Western throat for over a century!

    The failure of the West to solve the energy crisis now means Western leaders are going to try to grab Russia's oil & gas the same way they did Iraq's in 2003 - except that Russia, unlike Iraq*, has nuclear weapons, a fact that the Einstein boozed-up Westerners seem to have forgotten.

    Face it, Scull, we live in exciting times!

    TFOLZO

    PS: And Colin Powell once told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. At least he had the decency to resign when he found he'd been cheated by his own side.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #41  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Yeah, as a Canadian you can booze all you want because you hide behind the USA.
    I didn't know!

    Have to make up for lost time!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #42  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    I live in Australia so when war hots up and Australia supports West & Israel, all out war will break out - with Indonesia, Malaysia & Bangladesh invading Australia in response to Australia's support for USA nuking a Moslem country (Iran) - and Indonesia alone has 10 times Australia's population. We have redneck Judaeo-Christian Zionists running this country as you do in Canada - & Einstein's filth has been tipped down the collective Western throat for over a century!
    Take your meds, you are foaming at the mouth again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #43  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #40 post.

    Have you ever heard the expression "herding cats?" This how I would regard some collaborative military objectives regarding Bangladesh/Malaysia/Indonesia invading anything, never mind

    Australia!!! Most of the people in the Indian "sub-Continent" have only one real objective...EAT EVERY DAY, and drink water that isn't poisoned!!!

    .....

    Do you ANY idea of the logistics involved w/ mass troop movements? (Hitler didn't...it cost him the war in Russia, and led to defeat)

    Iran/Iraq are "paper tigers" and you know it...we (U.S.) show up w/ some real firepower, and Iraq's military fell apart like wet toilet paper...and Iran is the same. (two peas in a pod)


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #44  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Very true, Gerry N, that Indonesia, Malaysia & Bangladesh do not normally cooperate...
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #40 post.

    Have you ever heard the expression "herding cats?" This how I would regard some collaborative military objectives regarding Bangladesh/Malaysia/Indonesia invading anything, never mind

    Australia!!! Most of the people in the Indian "sub-Continent" have only one real objective...EAT EVERY DAY, and drink water that isn't poisoned!!!

    .....

    Do you ANY idea of the logistics involved w/ mass troop movements? (Hitler didn't...it cost him the war in Russia, and led to defeat)

    Iran/Iraq are "paper tigers" and you know it...we (U.S.) show up w/ some real firepower, and Iraq's military fell apart like wet toilet paper...and Iran is the same. (two peas in a pod)


    (Thanks for reading!)
    ...but they certainly will when they are under massive threat.

    Iranians (70m in number, population akin to Vietnam in size), seeing what happened to Iraq, will fight like tigers if invaded by a conventional military force. If the USA invaded Iran, US soldiers' bodies would litter the roads & towns, so that if the USA then nuked Iran in response to its losses, it would galvanize support for Iran from all Moslem and non-White countries.

    Those three countries, all Moslem, fall into that category - and there is a historical precedent for it too!

    Have you heard of the Sepoy Mutiny in India, GerryN?

    That was due to the activities of the Anglican Church - the London Missionary Society - using Thomas Christians to start a mass Christian conversion among the poor. It really worked, low-caste Hindus and poor Moslems joining in thousands to get free food from the wealthy Anglican backers.

    The Moslem & Hindu authorities - usually at each others' throats (like cincirob & JTyesthatJT) - found themselves facing a common enemy, so began to lobby the British-run native police force, to break from the British. These sepoys had been in British employ for many decades so the British could not understand their undisciplined behaviour to begin with. Hence the mutiny broke out very suddenly, catching the British by surprise.

    With the defeat of the Sepoy Mutiny, the British learnt their lesson and reigned in the London Missionary Society for good! But will Judaeo-Christian USA ever learn its lesson? - or will it be a nuclear war on behalf of Israel & more especially for seizing Russian oil & gas instead of solving the energy crisis by ditching Einstein's nonsense?

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #45  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #44 post.

    I am, first and last, a realist in terms of military conflict. You forget that Americans have been fighting since day one of a U.S. (we are really good at it, despite evidence to the contrary)

    It is in our "nature" to dominate the World around us...like it or no. (although we really don't want to destroy people...we just want them to be LIKE US!!! The same goals, the same ambitions)

    .....

    We (the U.S.) having been fighting since '45 w/ "kid gloves" on, as well as "strait-jackets" in terms of "rules of engagement" (Korea/Vietnam) Remove the constraints of "fight nice" and

    these Countries you mention would cease to exist in a matter of DAYS. Period. (No...no "nukes")

    You can take this "to the bank and cash it"...I KNOW THIS WELL!!! BEEN THERE...DONE THAT!!! Do you seriously believe even for a moment that any enemy, anywhere, would have a

    chance in hell of defeating us if we "took the gloves off?" Really? Seriously???

    ......

    Ask German survivors of WW2 "what they think of America's ability to fight an "all-out war"....or the Japanese for that matter!!!

    WE NEVER SURRENDER...EVER! WE HAVE NEVER BEEN DEFEATED BY ANY NATION OR GROUP OF NATIONS...PERIOD!!! What MORE proof do you need than history itself?

    Have I heard of the "Sepoy Mutiny?" Do you really think no one here is aware of history and the issues involved??? I LIVED HISTORY!!!

    ......

    (Just where are the "roads and towns" that American soldiers will litter...in the Middle East? You call the a "goat path" a road!?!? A loose coalition of mud-bricks a TOWN!?!?

    You call "ragheads who have never seen a flush toilet" FEARSOME ENEMIES WHO WILL DRINK OUR BLOOD!?!?

    Just what "fantasy alternate reality world" are you referring to???)

    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #46  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Although I think Gerry is crank BS. I will post this:

    NATO MILITARY POWER 2014 - YouTube

    :EDIT:

    I thought it was cool music.
    TFOLZO likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #47  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Indeed you are right Gerry (in the red bit)...
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #44 post.

    I am, first and last, a realist in terms of military conflict. You forget that Americans have been fighting since day one of a U.S. (we are really good at it, despite evidence to the contrary)

    It is in our "nature" to dominate the World around us...like it or no. (although we really don't want to destroy people...we just want them to be LIKE US!!! The same goals, the same ambitions)
    .....

    We (the U.S.) having been fighting since '45 w/ "kid gloves" on, as well as "strait-jackets" in terms of "rules of engagement" (Korea/Vietnam) Remove the constraints of "fight nice" and

    these Countries you mention would cease to exist in a matter of DAYS. Period. (No...no "nukes")

    You can take this "to the bank and cash it"...I KNOW THIS WELL!!! BEEN THERE...DONE THAT!!! Do you seriously believe even for a moment that any enemy, anywhere, would have a

    chance in hell of defeating us if we "took the gloves off?" Really? Seriously???
    ...and that is the greatest danger to the world since it means that USA, embodied once in General Patton but more recently in General Boykin, wishes to force Christianity - and thus libertarianism & Western financial elite control - down the necks of the Moslem World & everybody else. Better dead than Christian - as India, China & Japan showed long ago when Christians proselytizing there were defeated comprehensively (e.g. Japan has lowest prevalence of Christianity outside core Moslem world).

    But Vietnam knocked out the myth of US invincibility - this why USA would not attack Iran after the easy defeat of Saddam Hussein whose army was extremely demoralized to begin with. USA's myth of invincibility relies only on USA's size & population - but her hydrocarbon resources are now being depleted fast! Hence if USA "took the gloves off" its population would be razed along with the rest! Here's how:-

    If USA abandons "fight nice" USA will no longer survive since China's call for colored US citizens to rise up will break the USA apart subsequent to a nuclear war which will have destroyed scores of US cities. Rural USA will then come to rule - Aryan Brotherhood, Mormons and other flakes will stake out their own territories, Blacks & Latinos likewise. The USA could then only ever re-form as a federation or an overt slave state.

    This is why my country will not survive the fall of the USA if it fights on the side of the USA - Australia will be carved up by the victors. Understandably so too, since if Judeo-Christianity has lost a major slice of its territory it can never regain global hegemony even if the USA is reconstituted.

    Don't think you can expect much help from Canada either - if not boozed up without using a straw, or even if boozed, most Canadians consider USA dreams of global hegemony decidedly 'wacko' (see above)!

    To modify the Nazi adage: "Judaeo-Christianity is our misfortune."

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #48  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to BeerW/straw, re: your #46.

    Perhaps someday you will gain enough intellect to debate w/me...but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. "Paste-up" some more stuff you find on Wiki...and then some more

    of your pithy one-line comments (it's ALL you have) You aren't enough good enough to take on TFOLZO, never mind ME.


    ......

    Suck-up your own BS w/ a "straw".

    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #49  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #47 post.

    Just "who" would want to "carve-up" Australia? What...3,000 miles of worthless, waterless, uninhabitable DESERT??? Let's see....hmmm, resources! Every nasty insect known in the

    Universe! (Gee, there's a real plus!) Lots of nice beaches! And sometimes you can actually swim w/voracious sharks, as well as every slime-covered "ball of snot w/filaments" that can

    poison you and make you hope death would come "a little faster please". Sounds peachy!

    .....

    Your estimates of U.S. oil/gas/coal supplies is very low...we could easily "go it alone" for another century or so. (most "official" estimates are supplied by "guess who?" who have very

    good reasons...many billions of them...to dramatize "how little oil is left" in the U.S.) (I thought you did some homework on this...can you say "conspiracy by obfuscation" boys & girls?)

    Years ago, I worked for Eddie Clay Childs company...they specialize in "stimulation" by acidizing/fracturing est. "oil patches". I saw THOUSANDS of capped-wells in 5 states where I

    drove a Mack "sand-dump" truck used for stabilizing productive wells.

    Want to know why the other wells were "capped-off?" Because the "rate of return" wasn't high enough! Oh, the wells produce fine...the well owners make MORE money for NOT "working

    them". Govt. subsidies!


    (thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #50  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The latter part of your quote is very informative Gerry N, I only want to comment on the first part.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #47 post.

    Just "who" would want to "carve-up" Australia? What...3,000 miles of worthless, waterless, uninhabitable DESERT??? Let's see....hmmm, resources! Every nasty insect known in the

    Universe! (Gee, there's a real plus!) Lots of nice beaches! And sometimes you can actually swim w/voracious sharks, as well as every slime-covered "ball of snot w/filaments" that can

    poison you and make you hope death would come "a little faster please". Sounds peachy!
    Who would want to carve up Australia? Everybody who survived the nuclear war to see the USA break up subsequently. Australia would be invaded, because, being in the Southern Hemisphere, the nuclear fallout will be decidedly less since the two halves of the atmosphere circulate largely separately.

    Hence Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. will want to get their wealthier elites into a less nuclear-polluted area - & will make armies out of the more desperate to spearhead the invasion.

    Australia indeed "waterless, uninhabitable desert" but it is NOT as dry as the Sahara. The southern half of New Guinea has the wettest area in the world (Mt. Bosavi 600 inches a year; rains 330 days of the year, place uninhabited by the native people because it's so awful!), hence the abundant water can be brought to Australia to grow crops & trees - so long as there is enough energy to do so. And together Indonesia & Australia have enough coal to construct the pipelines to bring the water across the Arafura Sea to irrigate vast tracts of Australia - especially when you write of the USA having another century of coal (which it can convert into oil of course).

    Otherwise, Gerry N, I think you're referring to the box jellyfish "ball of snot with filaments" which infest northern waters only during the wetter summer season. That will not deter Asian farmers however, so long as they can get the water from New Guinea to grow rice. By supporting the USA - and believing in Einstein - Australians are dancing on their own graves, democratically of course.

    TFOLZO

    PS: Your comment on BWS etc. is priceless! Thanks for posting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #51  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your # 50 post.

    Don't get the impression I'm "knocking" Australia (well...maybe a little!) The only place I feel "right" is in my beloved semi-arid Southwest regions of the U.S., Nevada and Arizona.

    (this will always be "home" to me) I'm just stating facts as I see them w/ regard to the overwhelming task of accomplishing anything significant in the interior regions of Australia.

    (yeah...I remember Nevil Shutes book "On the Beach"...a classic!) The movie also...but you remember the end, yes? There is NO ESCAPE, TFOLZO..

    .....

    I cannot understand why you refuse to consider anything "Solar" as not really viable!? Esp. w/regard to where you live! Heat capture/storage/w/ resultant steam production would

    be "child's play" for the Aussies...It would make the entire Continent self-sufficient in electrical production basically FOREVER! (at least as long as the Sun lasts)

    .....

    You underestimate your country, as well as the U.S. We have "Agreements" true enough...but I have no doubt your Government would "take care of own" first w/regard to another

    World War, just as we would. "Agreements" only apply when things are normal or maybe a "little rough"...let it be a question of "survival of the Country" and agreements become

    history! (I think English-speaking people will stick together no matter what...we have common ancestors and common characteristics both genetically and sociologically)


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #52  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Interesting points Gerry N.In reply to TFOLZO, re: your # 50 post.

    Don't get the impression I'm "knocking" Australia (well...maybe a little!) The only place I feel "right" is in my beloved semi-arid Southwest regions of the U.S., Nevada and Arizona.

    (this will always be "home" to me) I'm just stating facts as I see them w/ regard to the overwhelming task of accomplishing anything significant in the interior regions of Australia.

    (yeah...I remember Nevil Shutes book "On the Beach"...a classic!) The movie also...but you remember the end, yes? There is NO ESCAPE, TFOLZO..

    .....How true! There is no escape - but Shutes book or at least the film does not highlight the atmospheric circulation question.

    I cannot understand why you refuse to consider anything "Solar" as not really viable!? Esp. w/regard to where you live! Heat capture/storage/w/ resultant steam production would

    be "child's play" for the Aussies...It would make the entire Continent self-sufficient in electrical production basically FOREVER! (at least as long as the Sun lasts)

    .....That is true for Australia & needs to be developed - though our gov't is uninterested, being totally devoted to hydrocarbons. Solar however cannot power the world. Japan & UK do not have large areas that can be devoted to it - so while Australia may produce for other countries, the problem of converting the energy into a transportable source of power will be a MAJOR issue. There is also the question of the decay of the solar thermal (& photovoltaic) support structure. E.g. all that metal etc. has to be renewed, & a large portion of that solar energy will be devoted to maintaining & renewing the solar generator structures - an issue not fully understood, and not as well understood as conventional nuclear power.

    You underestimate your country, as well as the U.S. We have "Agreements" true enough...but I have no doubt your Government would "take care of own" first w/regard to another

    World War, just as we would. "Agreements" only apply when things are normal or maybe a "little rough"...let it be a question of "survival of the Country" and agreements become

    history! (I think English-speaking people will stick together no matter what...we have common ancestors and common characteristics both genetically and sociologically)


    (Thanks for reading!)[/QUOTE]
    Were Australia truly interested in "taking care of its own" it would be NOT getting into the Middle Eastern wars since these will backfire fatally for Australia as I have outlined - i.e. there will be new system run by new masters and any present-day Australians surviving will be minority bit players, much as Aborigines in Australia are today. Like USA, Australia has many minority groups - more Moslems %-wise - therefore there will be major civil conflict in Australia too. The true curse is the global financial elite & its libertarian individualistic ideology, backed by the USA & UK with which unfortunately Australia shares a long cultural heritage. Only disaster will rid us of the libertarian ideology - but it will also wipe out present systems of government, all democratic systems including presidential, parliamentary & constitution monarchy.

    I feel we are getting off the track though - Mark Mason won't recognize the thread!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #53  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157


    I am at fault too. But this thread has gone way weird.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #54  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: thread

    I agree...we both owe apologies to MarkMason!!! (just how did physics get de-railed here?) Let's stick to physics BS and leave politics out. But leave Toto in....
    TFOLZO likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •