|
Post by carnyx on Oct 18, 2010 10:09:17 GMT 1
olmy,
I have analysed your arguments so far, both here and on the time thread, and I have noted your liberal use of the following fallacies;
- Numerous cases of ad hominem - Prejudicial language -Appeal to popularity -Argument from ignorance
And with regard to your argument in defence of the physical unreality of the 't' in the equations,
-Subverted support
And, with regard to current attempts to explain 'Apparent Time Dilation' to the general public, you cannot see that they contain the following fallacies; - Failure to elucidate - Circular definition
But overall, your arguments all fall with your insistence on including the fallacy of 'False Dilemma' (where two choices are offered where there are really three) And, they collapse completely with your maintenance of the Argumen from ignorance ( i.e that because something has not been proved, it must be false)
Finally, you really do go for the strawman fallacy all the time. That last sentence of yours is fabulous!
And I may remind you that this thread was started as a bit of a tease, in response to your casting aspersions, to see just how much counterintuitive (aka creative) thinking you can actually demonstrate.
QED, olmy
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 18, 2010 10:58:34 GMT 1
carnyx
"Analysed my arguments" LOL, the evidence suggests you haven't even read them!
While I have not always been polite (neither have you), I have addressed your points, which is far more than can be said for yourself - who have ignored almost every substantive point put to you.
I have never appealed to popularity. I did point out that it takes a great deal of arrogance to think one knows better than centuries of experts, while actually knowing next to nothing of what they said, but that has nothing to do with popularity.
Neither have I used an argument from ignorance. Not accepting a hand-waving, nonsensical excuse for solid evidence in favour of a theory you obviously simply don't like is not the same as claiming that something is untrue because it hasn't been proved. Perhaps little invisible purple goblins called Eric cause time dilation? Should you decide to reject that idea, would it be an argument from ignorance....?
You want your proposal to be seriously considered? Then make a proposal that makes some sense!
Neither have I used subverted support. All the phenomena I have referred to have been observed.
I have not, in this thread, even attempted to explain time dilation (your prejudicial language is also noted). A full explanation is well beyond the scope of a forum post. I did, in another thread, point abacus at some pages that gave an explanation. You fail to explain why you think that involved 'failure to elucidate' and 'circular definition'.
You also continue to confuse the ability to accept the counter-intuitive with creativity and that with an attraction to pointless guessing games.
Either your grasp of logic is as appalling as your grasp of science or you are simply being dishonest because you have no answer to the overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. As usual, your post is full of assertions and no evidence. If you are going to accuse someone of a logical fallacy, it needs to be backed up with an example.
There are mountains of solid evidence for relativity. The theory has been repeatedly tested and always been corroborated.
Give one, sensible, logical reason why anybody should listen to someone who claims it is wrong based on nothing but hand-waving, nonsensical, ad hoc stories for each bit of evidence and baseless assertion.
Remember 'Einstein was wrong' 'theorists', with no scientific or mathematical knowledge are ten a penny on the internet......
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 18, 2010 13:07:26 GMT 1
Olmy.
So many errors! You clearly have not read my post properly!
Your standard of argument really does require improvement.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 18, 2010 13:16:04 GMT 1
So many errors! You clearly have not read my post properly! Your standard of argument really does require improvement. Damn, there goes another industrial strength irony meter. carnyx, you might have a little more credibility if you actually ever addressed the points put to you. Any idiot can say that their opponent has a poor argument. Once again, however, we find that I have made several points and you have ignored them all......
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 18, 2010 13:47:46 GMT 1
olmy, this thread was especially started for you. You have long since proven the point of it.
Amuse us! Start a thread of your own! Set us a science puzzle!
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 18, 2010 13:58:38 GMT 1
olmy, this thread was especially started for you. You have long since proven the point of it. Amuse us! Start a thread of your own! Set us a science puzzle! No answers, then. Why am I not surprised..........?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 18, 2010 19:08:17 GMT 1
olmy.
You fail to see that all along, there must be room for kite-flying! Speculation as to Alternatives is not an actual threat to the status quo ... least of all from idle bollox on a chat-site!
But the Orthodox among us, such as you, cannot see it! You were told in post 1 that the whole purpose and object of this thread was to show you to have all the hallmarks of a flat-earther. You were even tipped off by NM!
Cross Garters suit you, olmy.
(PS find where I say that 'relativity is wrong' ... )
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 19, 2010 8:17:02 GMT 1
carnyx
Yes indeed, kite-flying - I'm all in favour of it.
Unfortunately, that is quite clearly not what you were doing. If you were, you would have stopped and moved on as soon as the total ignorance that underpinned your idea was pointed out. The first two pages of the "On Time?" thread should have sufficed, even for the most persistent of kite-flyers...
What you have been doing is dogmatically sticking to your position of blind faith despite any evidence. Just like a flat Earther or a creationist.
What you don't seem to realize is that you need to know what you are talking about to sensibly speculate. Penrose, for example, does it brilliantly. What you need to realize is that you cannot criticise Shakespeare until you've learnt the alphabet.
As for the purpose of the OP, I've ignored it for reasons already given. All you have actually achieved is to underline your own neo-religious irrationality. I know NM will agree with you, he will agree with anybody who criticises scientists or mainstream science, no matter how blatantly idiotic they are....
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 19, 2010 8:44:35 GMT 1
.........I know NM will agree with you, he will agree with anybody who criticises scientists or mainstream science, no matter how blatantly idiotic they are.... Really? In fact it is your sort of foolishness that I reject. The foolishness that rejects Darwin's questions as unintelligent, the foolishness that just cannot see that gravitational potential is a field with just as much validity as a gravitational force field, the foolishnes that chases after Carynx shouting 'not true' and abuse when anyone can see that he is just teasing you, the foolish combination of arrogance and ignorance that you display that does not belong to science. I have great respect for science, but not for bullers like you who claim to be able to inderstand the 'non-intuitive' findings of QM, yet display a quite amusing ignorance about ordinary science.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 19, 2010 13:11:50 GMT 1
Actually, no one on here (the sensible people at any rate) has said that these are anything other than equivalent mathematical descriptions of the SAME physical field.
The ONLY point of contention was idiots that claimed the value of the potential AT A POINT was a measure of the strength of the field, whereas in actuality, the strength of the field is defined as the gradient of the potential.
I might add that describing these as DIFFERENT fields shows a similar lack of understanding.
|
|