My Truden Life

I am only reminding you

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.

Lycos and the little yourky

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 is the relation between two 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:
Read more… »

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 a 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 interferences.
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 waves interfering with each other.
Read more… »

Bertrand Russell’s theory of knowledge (I can not believe it…!)

I won’t say “I can not believe that you call Bertrand Russell a philosopher” because that will bring difficulties in understanding the meaning of “belief”.
But I can say “Oh, my God!” and that will change nothing.

 

Do you understand what I’m saying?

Well, let me explain myself.

Belief has very little to do with behavior and your belief that Bertrand Russell is a philosopher, is not a behavior, neither it leads to behavior.

Then what is it?
It is a strong positivity in your uncertainty.
Your positive believe that Russell is an authority to trust, is most likely to be true in your uncertainty.
Unfortunately, the belief does not always reflect the truth.

But let us start with the Knowledge before explaining the Belief.

What is “knowledge”?

There are few types of knowledge.

BASIC KNOWLEDGE

Read more… »