|
|
Post by Vodmeister on May 23, 2014 20:27:00 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on May 23, 2014 20:29:42 GMT 5
I can't believe that even in 2014 someone is still desperate enough to believe in Lorentzianism over the Theory of Relativity, lol. Even Hendrik Lorentz himself admitted that his theory was wrong in favor of Einstein's.
Craig's reasoning:
1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is true because it is verified by Lorentzianism.
2. Lorentzianism is true because it is verified by the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 23, 2014 20:41:12 GMT 5
I remember some creationist website where someone tried to prove Einstein wrong by saying you don't get anything from 0 = 0.
Here his calculation:
c = x / t x - ct = 0 x > 0 (1)
c = -x / t x + ct = 0 x < 0 (2)
c = x'/ t' x' - ct' = 0 x'> 0 (3)
c = -x'/ t' x' + ct' = 0 x'< 0 (4)
0 = (x' - ct') = l * (x - ct) = 0 x > 0, x' > 0 (5)
0 = (x' + ct') = m * (x + ct) = 0 x < 0, x' < 0 (6)
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on May 23, 2014 23:01:45 GMT 5
I remember some creationist website where someone tried to prove Einstein wrong by saying you don't get anything from 0 = 0. Here his calculation: c = x / t x - ct = 0 x > 0 (1) c = -x / t x + ct = 0 x < 0 (2) c = x'/ t' x' - ct' = 0 x'> 0 (3) c = -x'/ t' x' + ct' = 0 x'< 0 (4) 0 = (x' - ct') = l * (x - ct) = 0 x > 0, x' > 0 (5) 0 = (x' + ct') = m * (x + ct) = 0 x < 0, x' < 0 (6) Unless I read this wrong, there is no contradiction in this at all. (5) says something like 0=l*0 which is just a true expression. I dont get it. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 23, 2014 23:42:51 GMT 5
I think he wanted to say that 0=0 is nothing useful to us.
I forgot to show all, his problem seemingly was following (dividing through zero):
0 = l * 0 l = 0
0 = m * 0 m = 0
a = (l + m) / 2 and b = (l - m) / 2 (7)
x' = a * x - b * ct (8)
ct' = a * ct - b * x (9)
0 = a * x - b * ct
x = ct * b/a a = 0 (10)
x / t = c * b/a a = 0 (11)
v = c * b/a a = 0 (12)
Looks like the problem is that he didn't consider that m and l could be everything, so he likely left something out in the calculation to get zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jul 5, 2014 16:00:12 GMT 5
I was thinking about it, could you use the Theory of Relativity to bullshit yourself out of a speeding ticket? Imagine that you were driving along the highway in spring at 150km/h when a police car approaches at 100km/h. He books you for driving 50km/h over the speed limit. Is there any way out of this one? Well, the problem here is that Physics tells us that there's no preferred frame of reference. Things can change velocity, but they can only "move" relative to other things. What if instead of the earth, my frame of reference was the passenger seat of my car? In that case, I was not moving at all, and my speed was 0 km/h, which is not above the speed limit. I know that this would never work in any civil court, but perhaps you could fool a dumb cop with it.  Using physics (or should I say, bullshitting) this guy was able to get himself out of a ticket.  www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNmpBycUYoAPretty funny stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 5, 2014 18:12:15 GMT 5
Yeah, all these philosophics (philosophy + physics) is pretty nice. I remember when our physics teacher told us about how velocity is measured relatively and ended with "In the end, when a kid says 'The house is moving away!' in a driving car, it actually makes sense.".
|
|
