Octocontrabass wrote:DavidCooper wrote:How many autistic people have you encountered who use such non-literal expressions?
All of them. Most people with autism are perfectly capable of understanding and using idioms. Of course, I'm not an expert - that's why I suggest you talk to a psychiatrist.
Well that is odd, because it's one of the key ways of identifying them - they express considerable puzzlement about the way neurotypical people speak due to all those idioms and metaphors where autistic people see the literal meaning instead. What's happening here is more bizarre though, because a number of people who can't do maths correctly are telling someone who can that there's something wrong with him, but they are a self-selected group of people who have been conned into a scientific cult which overrides their ability to do maths correctly in very specific cases where it goes against the cult beliefs. I'm not the one who needs help.
___________________________________________________________________
Gigasoft wrote:Most people haven't encountered any autists, period. Autism is a rare disease. Unless someone works as a health professional, it is unlikely that one will encounter autists and know what kind of expressions they use. Whether or not someone knows some particular English expression is also of course not a disproof of them being autists, and pointing out your own statement as a supposed proof of good health is extremely suspicious behaviour, especially when considering the fact that the statement was made just after someone suggested a psychiatric evaluation.
Nothing suspicious about it - I read between the lines in the way an autistic person would not do and I planted a subtle hint there to let them know that they were thinking down the wrong path. I encounter autists a fair bit: I've spent a lot of time helping them understand how to read neurotypical people, which I'm able to do without any difficulty as a neurotypical person. I've found that a lot of them don't know how to read a host of simple things not because they lack the brainpower to do it, but because no one's ever told them about the games that are being played where people don't directly say what they mean for a host of reasons. So you're barking up the wrong tree.
In any case, the correct approach would be to describe the symptoms and let a psychiatrist make the diagnosis. Personally, my bet is on narcissistic personality disorder of grandiose subtype.
No - just a respect for correct mathematics rather than having a mind virus drive ad hoc exceptions to prop up treasured beliefs which carry high status and which people like to wear as badges to display how clever they are, because that's what really makes Einstein appeal to them. It's his theories attract narcissists, while those who stand against them know that by doing so they are going to be looked down on and insulted at every turn, which is not something narcissists have the guts to choose.
No, religious people were not qualified experts.
They thought they were, and so did the masses. It's no different.
In this comparison, you are the 17th century church, insisting that there are absolute velocities, which Galileo rejected. Galileo's work was well respected and recognized by the scientific community.
Not at all: your scientific community is a cult which is trashing mathematics while I defend mathematics.
You are not "showing" anything. There is no math or variables in any of your arguments, just ambiguous terms being thrown around where you call different quantities with the same name and pretend they are the same quantity.
Of course there are variables and maths: all my scenarios are full of them, and any competent mathematician (i.e. not a biased physicist) will tell you so. And I have never pretended two different things are the same thing, so you're just making up nonsense.
Pick a number of sectors to divide the ring up into and then measure the speed of the pulse of light relative to each sector while it's passing through that sector.
This isn't math. You've just given a set of things that should be measured somehow, which was not the question.
Of course it's maths. Again, all competent mathematicians would recognise it as such and they would have no trouble making the measurements in the way I've specified. Most of the people here should be able to write a program that implements what I have described where the user can set the size of the ring, the number of sectors, the speed of rotation, the speed of travel of the apparatus in three direction components, etc. and they could have it produce specific average relative speed values on that basis. They could also set it to do this for thousands of random values and show that none of them produce a result other than that the relative speeds are higher for the light going round the ring against its direction of rotation than for the light going the opposite way. I could set that as an assignment and they could build what I have specified. Why would you fail that assignment? You are merely playing a game where you try to hide what has happened here by rambling against it.
Then, you have not shown the existence of absolute speeds, have you. All you did was to express a speed in some arbitrary coordinate system.
Arbitrary? ALL frames of reference. You want to disregard 100% of the measurements?
You completely ignored what I said. Yes, it can be moving at the same speed, because the coordinate axes are different. What if you went around and observed the system from the opposite side? A wave that was moving to the left relative to the air is now moving to the right relative to the same air. What sort of voodoo is this, an object moving at +s and -s at the same time?
You're mixing results from two coordinate systems and pretending they're compatible. We can do this with an actual wind tunnel, actual sounds and actual objects. I set the wind speed but you don't know what it is: all you get to see is the data that comes from the sound clocks as they listen to each other's sound beeps and record their times of arrival by their own reckoning of time. You can use s-frames to provide hyptheses as to what is actually happening in the wind tunnel. One of those can treat clock A as at rest in the air. Another can treat clock B as at rest in the air. A sound travels from clock A to clock B at the speed of sound relative to the air.
Frame A has that sound move at s relative to its hypothesised air, at s relative to clock A, and at 1.5s relative to clock B (which is moving towards clock A).
Frame B has that sound move at s relative to its hypothesised air, at s relative to clock B, and and 0.5s relative to clock A.
(Those are so vague: they're not maths! Bullshit. If you can't read the maths in these scenarios, you have no business being in this kind of discussion.)
Are both s-frames equally valid. What is the air actually doing? There is only one correct answer. One of the frames has the sound correctly moving at s relative to the air. The other frame does not. One frame provides a correct account of what is happening in the wind tunnel, but the other frame does not. It has the sound moving at ¬s (not s) relative to the air while the other frame has it moving at s relative to the air. If one of them is moving at s relative to the air and the other is moving at ¬s relative to the air, they cannot be moving at the same speed as each other. When you convert from one frame to another, you are actively changing the speed of the sound pulse relative to the objects in the system and you are also moving it relative to the previous version of itself. When you try to make all frames equally valid, you absolutely do have the sound pulse moving at an infinite number of different speeds relative to itself, and you're doing exactly the same thing with a light pulse in space with c-frames even when you deny the medium (which governs the propagation of the light pulse and yet which you claim doesn't exist, thereby governing it with unacknowledged magic instead). I can't force you to see that any more than Galileo could force the religious experts to see what the dropped weights did, but other people who look at this and who aren't shackled in their thinking can look and see, and the rational ones will know who is right.
It's exactly the same thing, but with rotations instead of boosts. One of the lines represents the air, and the other line represents the sound pulse moving with respect to it. The "relative slope" corresponds to your frame-dependent relative speed. The only thing that is "happening" differently in different frames is that coordinates and speeds have different numerical values.
It doesn't work with sound in air, and it doesn't work with light in space either. You're blinding yourself with errors that you've been programmed to believe are valid. Only one s-frame can provide a correct account of what is going on, and that's the case even if you get rid of the air and use magic nothings as a medium instead: each frame uses its own magic nothing, so you have an infinite number of mediums in play which are all moving relative to each other and which collectively have every sound pulse moving at an infinite number of different speeds relative to itself all the time as a direct result. Your mistake is so colossal that you cannot believe that you've made it, and yet you have.
Furthermore, in the case of light, there is no "air" that it is moving through.
Oh yes, because light travels through nothing by magic while its speed and direction is governed by that magic nothing which you use instead of a medium and fool yourself into thinking isn't a medium. You're thinking like a religious expert and not like a proper scientist.
