A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Who Is Less Insane: Neil deGrasse Tyson or Flat Earthers?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 8th 17, 04:41 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Who Is Less Insane: Neil deGrasse Tyson or Flat Earthers?

"Neil deGrasse Tyson, perhaps the most famous astrophysicist in the world and a seemingly affable guy, upset teachers and started something of a Twitter frenzy with a tweet blaming U.S. schools for people who believe the world is flat." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-arent-amused/

Teachers are innocent. The blame should be put on Neil deGrasse Tyson himself and brothers Einsteinians who, for more than a century, have been destroying human rationality by teaching Einstein's idiocies. If we have to choose between the flat-earth idea and the idea of "a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order", I think the former is less detrimental to sanity:

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-H.../dp/039335038X
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is A COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER."

https://plus.maths.org/content/einstein-relativity
David Tong: "Special relativity is where the famous equation E=mc^2 comes from. The central idea of the theory is that there is a speed limit in our Universe. The laws of physics conspire so that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1...-limit-042715/
Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc3-29dguFs
Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea - that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...-nutshell.html
Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion.. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity."

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/im...0819051851.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 9th 17, 07:14 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Who Is Less Insane: Neil deGrasse Tyson or Flat Earthers?

If the banal fairy tales of Flat-Earthers are insane, how about these stories:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth.. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

Einsteinians are obviously professional psychopaths, Flat-Earthers are only amateurs.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old August 9th 17, 06:40 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Who Is Less Insane: Neil deGrasse Tyson or Flat Earthers?

Neil deGrasse Tyson mercilessly brainwashes the gullible world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "One of the towering great achievements of the human mind in our understanding of the universe is Einstein's theories of relativity. [...] It makes only two assumptions: that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant no matter who is doing the measurement and no matter in what direction you are moving or how fast. You always get the same measurement for the speed of light. That's Assumption 1 which by the way the experiment has shown to be true. [...] Given those two tenets, extraordinary spooky phenomena derive from them. For example: As you travel faster [...] time ticks more slowly for you than it does for other people who are not."

Two blatant lies in the above performance:

1. "The experiment" has shown that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is true.

2. Time ticks MORE SLOWLY for the moving observer.

No experiment has shown that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is true. In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...over_final.pdf
"To it, we should add that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was unhelpful and possibly counter-productive in Einstein's investigations of an emission theory of light, for the null result is predicted by an emission theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

As for the second blatant lie, "Time ticks MORE SLOWLY for the moving observer", it is contradicted by other Einsteinians:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..."

http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox
"The Twin Paradox is a scenario that, at first glance, seems to make nonsense out of Einstein's theory of special relativity. The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. [...] What happens is that the twin on Earth, viewing himself as stationary and his brother as moving at high speed, sees his brother experiencing time dilation and thus ageing more slowly. At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself."

According to special relativity, time ticks FASTER, not MORE SLOWLY, for the moving observer - he will discover this by comparing his (moving) clocks with stationary clocks. In order to completely confuse the brainwashed world, Tyson is teaching the opposite to what Einstein's relativity predicts! Flat Earthers are unable to practice such subtle doublethink - they are much less insane than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old August 10th 17, 12:58 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Who Is Less Insane: Neil deGrasse Tyson or Flat Earthers?

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:40:31 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Neil deGrasse Tyson mercilessly brainwashes the gullible world:

I agree, Dr Neil should stick to his area of expertise (astrophysics) and not wander into atmospheric physics (global warming) and macro-evolution (micro-evolution is very limited in scope) because speciation is a theory in need of facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "One of the towering great achievements of the human mind in our understanding of the universe is Einstein's theories of relativity. [...] It makes only two assumptions: that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant no matter who is doing the measurement and no matter in what direction you are moving or how fast. You always get the same measurement for the speed of light. That's Assumption 1 which by the way the experiment has shown to be true. [...] Given those two tenets, extraordinary spooky phenomena derive from them. For example: As you travel faster [...] time ticks more slowly for you than it does for other people who are not."

Two blatant lies in the above performance:

1. "The experiment" has shown that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is true.


Michelson–Morley were trying to measure the aether and found that it did not exist. Therefor light does not require a medium to propagate. Light rides on the tracks of its own electric and magnetic fields. In fact, any particle that does not have rest mass must travel at the speed of light. If Einstein hadn't published his theory of special relativity another scientist would have, Lorentz probably.

2. Time ticks MORE SLOWLY for the moving observer.


Given that gravity is equivalent to an accelerating reference frame (you are accelerating towards the center of the earth at 9.8 m/s/s), clocks on earth's surface tick slower than clocks in orbit (on the ISS for example). Clocks on GPS satellites run slightly faster than reference clocks on earth.

Rael

snip

Pentcho Valev

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Einsteinian Neil deGrasse Tyson blames U.S. schools for flat-Earthers Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 22nd 17 07:59 PM
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.