isaacein said:

Smitington said:

I would say that light never ultimately achieves the ultimate speed limit or one space quanta per one time quanta, but comes very very close to it. 

---

You would say that huh?

Quote:

I am quite sure that different light has been observed to travel at slightly different velocities

---

Different light huh? Different in what respect?

"Quite sure"? It's unbelievable how little you know about what you think you are talking about.

Quote:

I still have more to learn about SR and GR

---

Apparently you still have to learn all of it, except perhaps the vocabulary.

Quote:

Modern physics wants to define it as relative, while I want to define it as absolute but remembering that it is important to keep relativity effects in mind.

---

Right; you mean those "relativity effects" due to space being relative?

Quote:

Also, Einstien pointed out that gravity was unlike other forces because using the formula f=ma, the mass of the object in question would cancel out, and thus mass was not related to the acceleration.

---

What? What do you mean the mass "cancels out"? It seems you cannot even interpret a linear function properly. Moreover, this relation is valid for any force, not just gravitational forces.

What this relation says is that the acceleration on an object is proportional to the total force exerted on it, with the proportion being given by the mass of the object. Gravitational forces have nothing in perticular to do with this relation.

Quote:

Also, I believe in gravitational waves as a way to explain gravity.

---

Believe as in "have faith"?

Quote:

My idea on space quanta is that they act like a mind, and they store information, and decide, very conciously, what to do with that information.  All forces can be explained simply as decisions which the space quanta have made.  I view forces and decisions to be the same thing.  When we see a twenty dollar bill on the ground, we are attracted to it, and pick it up, therefore I view there being a force which pulled us to the 20 dollar bill.  When space quanta which holds matter recieves gravitational waves which indicate that another space quanta out there also holds matter, that space quanta, judging by how many gravitational quanta it recieves, accelerates its matter, that is, it passes it on to neighboring space quanta, choosing the direction based upon which direction the gravitional quanta came from.

---

I imagined reading this from a textbook and I shot milk out of my nose. The above paragraph is a tribute to all past, present and future trolls of the Internets.

---

Smitington said:

Not really, SR is all about gravitation, plus you wanted me to explain my stance on GR.

---

flangenips said:

I agree.
His questions seem more on the lines of Philosophy of speech and semantics... than they do scientific ones.
However, philosophy and science are interlocked - in that without evidence or logic(/math) its easy to be sceptical of a philosophy too.

Logic is a field in philosophy that i consider highly linked to science - and it was my favourite at uni. And we studied (as mentioned in this thread) xenos paradox.
However - just because a trajectory has infinite points, it doesn't actually mean it cannot reach a point and is unable to be quanitified.
The paradox (like most) is a paradox of thought process and language - not practical science. Quantifying is something we do in order to compare and contrast - helps us with standards and controls in practical sciences. Paradoxes are a weak way of say something is impractical and wrong.

If you can show mathematically whats wrong with measuring distance between quanta then maybe you've got our attention.
If you can back that up with an experiment, then maybe we'll believe you.

---

isaacein said:

Smitington said:

Not really, SR is all about gravitation, plus you wanted me to explain my stance on GR.

---

So far, the only thing you have convinced anyone of is that you do not know anything about what you are talking about.

I challenge you to give a brief description of the most basic principles of special relativity, since you know all that it's about. Be precise, and do not just state results; explain your claims and do not refer to your own "theory". Explain how the results of special relativity affect theoretical physics in general, and explain how we know that special relativity is a good model (give examples of experiments).

To be fair, I will not comment at all on your description. I will let other readers judge for themselves.

At this point, if you refuse, I'm quite sure that everybody will interpret your refusal as definite proof of your utmost incompetence. If you succeed, then you will have regained some credibility and perhaps people will pay more attention.

---

Smitington said:

I don't care if you laugh, it is what you want to do anyways so it's all good, we all know what you expect when I explain it.


I'm not gonna pretend I know more about it than I do, and I'm not gonna wiki it up to explain it better.  The best I can do right now is say that in GR a flat surface is likened to space, and an object is ontop of this flat surface, which causes it to bend in, like if you had a rubber sheet stretched out, being held tightly at each end, if you were to place a bowling ball in the middle, the ball would stretch the sheet down.  Now, if you set a marble on this rubber sheet, towards the end of it, it would roll down until it hit the bowling ball, this is because of the dip the bowling ball made.  This is a metaphor for gravitation.  The rubber sheet is the fabric of spacetime, and a massive object actually bends spacetime, and it is this bend of spacetime that causes objects to move toward each other.

---

Tedwilto said:

And yet that is i think the 5th time you have compared yourself to einstein.

---

Chespirito said:

True but his theories were thought up in a mind more well versed in physics than many physicists at the time.  He was a genius the likes of which is rarely seen in humanity.  His theories weren't a forceful attempt to put his viewpoint on physicality.  He had a deep understanding of physics and thus could see errors in physical thinking at that time.  You have no such thing

---

Tedwilto said:

And yet that is i think the 5th time you have compared yourself to einstein.

---