Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
So, CJ, if your just gonna sit there and blast me with analytics of observations (which is all YOU have), I have no choice but to repeat; “its all about causality and emergence” and “look at the program code, none of the observed laws are programmed in…” and repeat this conversation, now for the 4th time.
But you're explicitly programming things like fusion in, rather than letting them emerge.

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
I will prove to you, right here on this forum, that my simple little program implements “Digital Relativity” without bending time and gravity. It’s so easy, a caveman could do it, it’s just a very SIMPLE loop that moves matter and radiation around using a set of loop counters. Its all integer arithmetic… in fact, it removes the need for any event timers in the system; it runs as a simple and pure finite series equation.
You need to prove to me that your simple little program has something to do with reality. If you prove that your program predicts a global, absolute time, you have proven that your model does not match reality.

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
Did you see the program code (above)?
I saw some messy, poorly formatted VB-esque pseudocode and made some attempt to decipher it, but saw no reason for it to give any useful results.

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
OK, CJ, actually I’m already in the process of doing this write-up in another brand new paper I should have out by next week named “Flat-Out Disproving Relativity in 120 Minutes”.

YOU DON’T NEED TO WAIT, I will show you EVERYTHING right here, and RIGHT NOW. OK?
To clarify, the following is meant as a disproof of relativity?

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
Einstein’s Train Paradox:
RiderDude is standing on a train traveling at the blazingly fast speed of 3 miles per second (this must be in Japan somewhere, I cant explain why its not metric, though).

RoadsideDude is standing on the side of the road at the same instant the train happens by and also happens to turn its headlamp on (of course… this guy is still homeless from that big sea wave).

The heart of the paradox is the question of the speed of the train being added onto the speed of light. Does this occur or not? YES OR NO?
Quite conclusively no. This was a question early on, with the idea of the emitter's velocity being added in being called the ballistic theory of light or emitter theory. It was raised as an explanation for the null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, it does not fit reality. Light from binary stars would be coming toward us faster on one half of the orbit than on the other half, overtaking light emitted at other parts of the orbit and smearing the image of the stars out across their orbits. We don't see this, we see clearly separated stars.

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
To answer this question, we need to observe how far the light goes from both of the Dude’s points of view. We do so by asking this question:

When the light hits the mountain up ahead, will RiderDude see it before RoadsideDude?

If the answer were yes, then that would explain it; the velocity of the train was added onto the velocity of light, so RiderDude watches the light hit the mountain before RoadsideDude.

If the answer is no, then how can this happen??? ???
The light was emitted as the train passed the roadside observer while approaching the mountain? Well, the rider will clearly see the reflected light first, as he will be between the mountain and the stationary observer. The stationary observer might even see the rider's silhouette against the mount.

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
Well, we all know the answer is no. So how in the heck can this happen?
We do? How can what happen?

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
Still with me?

108 minutes to go.
Better get started on that disproof then.

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
The Train Flash Incident Specifics:

Let’s repeat the scenario again with a more analytical approach.

Both RiderDude and RoadsideDude were standing at mile marker 0 when this whole, stinking thing all went down, EXACTLY at time 12:00:00. The mountain is dead ahead at mile marker 40,003 miles.

Lets call the speed of light “C” and assume it’s a fixed, pre-determined number, and in this example universe we’re operating in, let’s make it 20,000 miles per second.

· Speed of light: 20,000 miles per second
· Speed of the train: 3 miles per second
· Location of Flash: Mile marker 0
· The Mountain’s location: 40,003 miles dead ahead
· One RiderDude is on-board the moving train
· One RoadsideDude is standing still on the side of the tracks
· Both Dudes are at mile marker 0 the instant of the flash


12:00:00… At the moment of flashing the lamp:
· RiderDude: The light is right there in front of him.

· RoadsideDude: The light is also right there in front of him.
12:00:01… One second after flashing the lamp:
And here is the paradox; should we add the speed of the train onto the speed of light flowing away from the train’s (and RiderDude’s) point of perception?

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
If yes, then:

I can’t describe the problem any clearer than this. If you still don’t understand after re-reading, try another sport.
You left a few things out. Like all the calculations that didn't make the above incorrect assumption. The speed of light is constant as measured by all observers.

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
ALL righty, now my program
...weren't you just going to disprove relativity?

Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
implements the speed of light in the=is SPECIAL WAY that I keep going on and on about, and you keep reminding me about ho its not telling you anything.

Try to pay attention for a few pages, OK?

Heck, the explanation is 10 times longer than the code itself.

I’m implementing everything in terms of GC / tick. There are not fixed speeds, everything is done in relation only to one thing, and that is the maximum resolution of the system: WordSize (the max. numerical limitation is 2**WordSize)
This doesn't appear to answer anything.