Relativity?
Re: Relativity?
I mean, good god, seriously, has this newest troll even READ what's I've written in this thread?
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Relativity?
Everything idiot! As you can't show me it doesn't, as it's obviously above your head, you parrot of a moron!
You young newbies are all the same! High on yourself!
Peace be with you my friend!
Happy Holidays!
Try education, it'll allow you to finally think for yourself.
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Relativity?
Look at my message count and my join date, idiot! You newbie troll!!!
"...what's I've written..."??? Speak much??? Moron!
You should try a remedial English Class!!!
Happy Holidays My friend.
It's a distinct pleasure arguing with such a moron!
Re: Relativity?
Wow, the quality of discourse here is just so abysmally low.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:49 pmLook at my message count and my join date, idiot! You newbie troll!!!
You have made a fool of yourself -- again! I now recall you are the one babbling about tachyons, the expansion of the universe, and how light should pick up the motion of a moving frame -- exactly the opposite of how things are!
Everything you quoted is in EXACT AGREEMENT with what I've been saying all along in this thread. You're just too stupid to understand that, or you're a troll, or possibly both.
Re: Relativity?
I just looked at your current post count: 5,068.
Every single post no doubt useless.
Every single post no doubt useless.
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Relativity?
You didn't understand a thing I've said, as you're too full of yourself! You're a very good parrot though.davidm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:53 pmWow, the quality of discourse here is just so abysmally low.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:49 pmLook at my message count and my join date, idiot! You newbie troll!!!
You have made a fool of yourself -- again! I now recall you are the one babbling about tachyons, the expansion of the universe, and how light should pick up the motion of a moving frame -- exactly the opposite of how things are!
Everything you quoted is in EXACT AGREEMENT with what I've been saying all along in this thread. You're just too stupid to understand that, or you're a troll, or possibly both.
Happy Holidays!
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Relativity?
Is davidm short for David Moron? It would surely seem so. Grow up and follow along, while parking your parroted preconceptions at the door.
You can't know that it's time that is being manipulated only the process. Understand?
Think of the cesium atom like the wooden clock in my example.
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Relativity?
Sure, but that still doesn't mean that time is being slowed, only that the process is being slowed. Understand??
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Relativity?
What davidm seems to not be capable of understanding is that in the experiment of time dilation, speed and gravity cannot be isolated as the only variables in the experiment. So the Scientific Method cannot be said to have been observed during the so called experiments on time dilation.
If in fact, in any experiment, there are more that one variable, any conclusion cannot be certain, PERIOD!
I mean did they account for the relative position within the earths magnetosphere? Did they account for the direction of flight within the magnetosphere? How about Dark energy and dark matter? Relative cosmic radiation? How about eddy currents? Clearly motion and gravity were not the only variables! Then there might even be variables that no one might be capable of considering, considering that man has only gotten to his planets moon. Definitive, my ass! Theory, of course, that and nothing more!
If in fact, in any experiment, there are more that one variable, any conclusion cannot be certain, PERIOD!
I mean did they account for the relative position within the earths magnetosphere? Did they account for the direction of flight within the magnetosphere? How about Dark energy and dark matter? Relative cosmic radiation? How about eddy currents? Clearly motion and gravity were not the only variables! Then there might even be variables that no one might be capable of considering, considering that man has only gotten to his planets moon. Definitive, my ass! Theory, of course, that and nothing more!
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Relativity?
So what is time if not a process?SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:12 pmSure, but that still doesn't mean that time is being slowed, only that the process is being slowed. Understand??
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Relativity?
So you're saying that you know, with absolute certainly, that time exists as you seem to understand it?uwot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:35 pmSo what is time if not a process?SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:12 pmSure, but that still doesn't mean that time is being slowed, only that the process is being slowed. Understand??
Again uwot, I'm not saying that I know. I'm simply saying that as to the true nature of time, if it even exists, no one can say they necessarily know.
Things within the universe can be directly influenced by other things in the universe. Before anyone can say with certainly, all things within the universe must be considered and eliminated as possible influences, before any single influence can be said to be a causal.
How much does humankind actually know? I'm not talking of what we believe we know? What do we actually know with certainty? Can we ever know the answer to that question?
Here you go! Now you tell me...
"Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe—a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[15][16] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[17] and Immanuel Kant,[18][19] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --wikipedia--
It would seem philosophers can't agree. Which is it?
Re: Relativity?
All of these things can be accounted for mathematically, in principle, in relativity theory. In practice it might be very difficult, but it doesn't matter. We can get useful answers, for all practical purposes, by idealizing certain situations and ignoring marginal influences. In the exact same way, we can ignore relativity theory and employ standard Newtonian mechanics to compute spacecraft trajectories to other planets, because the velocities are so low that relativistic influences are negligible.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:28 pm What davidm seems to not be capable of understanding is that in the experiment of time dilation, speed and gravity cannot be isolated as the only variables in the experiment. So the Scientific Method cannot be said to have been observed during the so called experiments on time dilation.
If in fact, in any experiment, there are more that one variable, any conclusion cannot be certain, PERIOD!
I mean did they account for the relative position within the earths magnetosphere? Did they account for the direction of flight within the magnetosphere? How about Dark energy and dark matter? Relative cosmic radiation? How about eddy currents? Clearly motion and gravity were not the only variables! Then there might even be variables that no one might be capable of considering, considering that man has only gotten to his planets moon. Definitive, my ass! Theory, of course, that and nothing more!
"Definitive, my ass! Theory, of course, that and nothing more!" is a sure tipoff that you don't understand what a theory is in science. No theories are definitive, and science is not about what is "definitive."
Re: Relativity?
The process is what time is -- if the process slows, time slows!SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:12 pmSure, but that still doesn't mean that time is being slowed, only that the process is being slowed. Understand??
Re: Relativity?
Oh, really? Show me where ANYTHING that you quoted contradicts ANYTHING I wrote.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:46 pmEverything idiot! As you can't show me it doesn't, as it's obviously above your head, you parrot of a moron!
It doesn't. I agree with it!
Peace be with you my friend!
Happy Holidays!
No u, dummy.Try education, it'll allow you to finally think for yourself.
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Relativity?
I understand EXACTLY what THEORIES are! That was my reference to YOU and others that "ACT" AS THOUGH THEY KNOW AS IF CERTAINLY AND COMPLETELY, YOU IDIOT!davidm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:57 pmAll of these things can be accounted for mathematically, in principle, in relativity theory. In practice it might be very difficult, but it doesn't matter. We can get useful answers, for all practical purposes, by idealizing certain situations and ignoring marginal influences. In the exact same way, we can ignore relativity theory and employ standard Newtonian mechanics to compute spacecraft trajectories to other planets, because the velocities are so low that relativistic influences are negligible.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:28 pm What davidm seems to not be capable of understanding is that in the experiment of time dilation, speed and gravity cannot be isolated as the only variables in the experiment. So the Scientific Method cannot be said to have been observed during the so called experiments on time dilation.
If in fact, in any experiment, there are more that one variable, any conclusion cannot be certain, PERIOD!
I mean did they account for the relative position within the earths magnetosphere? Did they account for the direction of flight within the magnetosphere? How about Dark energy and dark matter? Relative cosmic radiation? How about eddy currents? Clearly motion and gravity were not the only variables! Then there might even be variables that no one might be capable of considering, considering that man has only gotten to his planets moon. Definitive, my ass! Theory, of course, that and nothing more!
"Definitive, my ass! Theory, of course, that and nothing more!" is a sure tipoff that you don't understand what a theory is in science. No theories are definitive, and science is not about what is "definitive."
You Don't! So stop acting like you do, instead admitting that you don't!!! FOOL!
God you're a brain dead fuck! So full of yourself, GROW THE FUCK UP, BOY!
If you don't or can't, then everyone in this threat is both correct and incorrect. Man are you slow!!! I gotta pull you along by the ring in your nose, sheesh!!!