Home Blog

Relativity of simultaneity and length contraction debunked

Truden
-
2
Relativity of simultaneity and length contraction debunked
Relativity of Simultaneity and length contraction debunked
Relativity of Simultaneity and length contraction debunked

To question the length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity I introduce a third simultaneous event in the ladder paradox problem.

How?  Simply, by attaching a rod to each door, which is welded perpendicularly on the inside of the doors, in a way that the rod tips touch when both the doors are closed. (See the red attached arms on the graphics)
Think of this touching event as verification of the simultaneity – touching verifies simultaneity, no touching – no simultaneity.
Obviously, this event will be absent in the ladder reference frame, since the doors in that frame are not closing simultaneously.
Missing event in one of the reference frames is against the law of physics, which automatically puts Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in the scientific dustbin.

Read more in the original post.

You may consider this article interesting too.

Time, Motion and Mind

Truden
-
1
Time, Motion and Mind

Time!
What is Time?

The widely accepted definition of time which we know from school is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”
My definition is:

Time, Motion and Mind
Time, Motion and Mind

Time is the relation between two or more events

Time is relevant and limited to the events.
In philosophical discussions I always introduce the idea about the hierarchy in the mind concepts.
Every mind concept appears in certain hierarchical order and by changing the hierarchy we end up with fallacy.

In this particular case the time is placed before the events.
The accepted definition of time states that the events appear in Time, but it is actually the other way round – time is created as a concept from the relation between two or more events.

My arguments:

Continue

God for scientists

Truden
-
0
God for scientists
God for Scientists
God for Scientists

We had an interesting discussion in the already closed Orkut.com and I’d like to put here the spark which put the atheist forum in fire.
Here it is with small changes and additions:

So let’s see whether there is such a thing as “God for scientists”.

I’ll start with the famous question: “Did a falling tree in the forest made a sound if nobody heard it?”
The answer is NO. The tree didn’t make any sound but did produce vibration with a frequency between 20 and 20000 hertz.
Sound appears to us (and some sentient beings) when we with our ears detect (observe) these vibration frequencies.
The same explanation stands for all observations we do.
We do not observe matter but patterns created by wave interference.
Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named “matter” in all its observable variations. If not observed everything is nothing but interfering waves.

Continue

Bertrand Russell – how knowledge is created, who creates it, and where logic stays in it

Truden
-
0
Bertrand Russell – how knowledge is created, who creates it, and where logic stays in it
Bertrand Russell - Knowledge
Bertrand Russell – Knowledge

“Can human beings know anything, and if so, what and how? This question is really the most essentially philosophical of all questions.” – Bertrand Russell

Not being offensive to Bertrand Russell’s logic I’d like to mark his question as illogical.
Such question should not be uttered if it puts in doubt the ability to know, assuming that we don’t know and we will never know [any answer].
It is also illogical to utter it if we assume that we have knowledge to the extent of having this question.

“I know” is a wrong statement in absolute sense.
“I create knowledge” is the right statement.

As long as we observe we will create knowledge.
All things are already known to us.
We can not observe something out of our five senses; therefore we can not create knowledge out of “the five”. In this Universe there is nothing unknown to us. The details are unimportant because they come from our knowledge.
We know what knowledge are we missing, only if we already have the knowledge about the subject? Not knowing what knowledge are we missing, is an ignorance.

The above said may sound “non sense” if one does not know the meaning of “knowledge”.

Have Bertrand Russell really explained what is “knowledge”?

The self-awareness does not use words and meanings for itself. (How can you explain you, being you?)
Meanings and concepts are created and put in words after the self-awareness observes something different than its own self.
“Motion, object, something different than myself.”
We have just created knowledge by creating the concept of something which is not “me”. The same way we create all possible knowledge.

Continue

Awareness beforehand

Truden
-
8
Awareness beforehand
awareness before hand
awareness before hand

The Concept

An existence is claimed only after observation.
Contrary to all philosophical claims and dictionary definitions, Existence is state of presence in an observation.
The mind changes the concept by applying “existence” to the object, forgetting that the “existence” derived from (and actually is) awareness about presence.
Awareness is needed in order to make the existence valid.

—

Explanation

We work with “existence” more like a meaning (concept), but after it was created by the conscious mind, the mind deceivingly is applying it to the object.
Actually, it is the other way round – the existence is applicable to the mind.

We wouldn’t talk about existence if we never observed it.
If we only have self_awareness without any other knowledge, existence is impossible as a concept (meaning, knowledge).

Because any existence is observed through our five senses we can say that all things are already known to us through the concepts created through observation.

Details in 50/50 (Part One) throughout Part Two, Part Three, Point of Exit and Clarification for dummies as well as the first comment in this topic

50/50 (Clarification for Dummies)

Truden
-
0

The main problem in understanding the concept “Awareness beforehand” is:
the mind do not pay attention to the fact that it works with meanings and concepts created after the observation.

Once an existence was registered in observation the “existence” concept was created and from then on the mind applies the existence to an object.
That is wrong. The mind forgets that the existence applies to its own awareness and actually is observed presence, after which it became knowledge about presence.
Hence the concept of existence.

In other words existence is a mind awareness for a presence, or to make it even simpler, existence is a presence in the mind.
After the concept is created we apply it to objects and that makes it mind deceiving.
Mind starts to think of existence as something out of its awareness.

To see “existence” in its true nature we must go back and see it as a concept created by the awareness.
Existence applies to the awareness not to the object.

Now after repeating it few times I hope most dummies will get closer to the concept “Awareness beforehand” 😀

– – –

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Point of Exit
Clarification for Dummies

123...16Page 1 of 16
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv