Time has to exist, if it can be curved

[SecularCauses]

<snip>

It's time itselfthat is altered, which would occur without the exstence of any clocks.

Prove it. Name your proof that time is altered.

Look up the derivation for the equation e=mc2 in specal relativity. It really does not take much more than some understanding of algebra to follow. The traditional derivation uses a light beam bouncing off a moving mirror, analogous to a swimmer going across a moving river. It's really basic physics.

[tillingborn]

Look up the derivation for the equation e=mc2 in specal relativity. It really does not take much more than some understanding of algebra to follow. The traditional derivation uses a light beam bouncing off a moving mirror, analogous to a swimmer going across a moving river. It's really basic physics.

The point about the light clock is that the beam appears to travel further than a comparable clock it is moving relative to. Time isn't slowing down, the clock just takes longer to tick.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Look up the derivation for the equation e=mc2 in specal relativity. It really does not take much more than some understanding of algebra to follow. The traditional derivation uses a light beam bouncing off a moving mirror, analogous to a swimmer going across a moving river. It's really basic physics.

The point about the light clock is that the beam appears to travel further than a comparable clock it is moving relative to. Time isn't slowing down, the clock just takes longer to tick.

Apparently he fails to understand that 'real' science is all about control, which is impossible in this instance, as man is yet too young. If we could do the experiment in a most vast matter devoid area of space as compared with our current model and maybe another test in close proximity to a black hole, then and only then would we be capable of assuming a causal. Of course the more samplings we had, with varying forces present and not present, would give us a clearer more precise picture, from which to extrapolate a causal for the nano variation.

[SpheresOfBalance]

<snip>

It's time itselfthat is altered, which would occur without the exstence of any clocks.

Prove it. Name your proof that time is altered.

Look up the derivation for the equation e=mc2 in specal relativity. It really does not take much more than some understanding of algebra to follow. The traditional derivation uses a light beam bouncing off a moving mirror, analogous to a swimmer going across a moving river. It's really basic physics.

My point apparently went over your head, and it appears it shall remain there for quite some time. It's all about having a control so as to eliminate other possibilities. Also you should look up the definition of 'theory,' as it would seem you have it confused with 'fact.'

The experimenters had no way of knowing that it was indeed time that accounted for the nano difference and not the mechanism. Show your proof otherwise, you cannot, as they could not!

[SecularCauses]

The experimenters had no way of knowing that it was indeed time that accounted for the nano difference and not the mechanism. Show your proof otherwise, you cannot, as they could not!

No, your point is invalid and has been for a long time. The problem is that you know too little science for me to carry on an intelligent conversation with you on the topic. It would be like trying to explain to a second grader that the numbers he sees and uses for solving problems are really complex numbers is disguise. You just don't have the foundation to understand, and I have no desire to spend my time teaching you what you should have learned in school. You are just way off the track. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm sure you are trying, but you really need to learn some physics and then you'll say, "Damn, SecularCauses was right. Now I get my error."

[SpheresOfBalance]

The experimenters had no way of knowing that it was indeed time that accounted for the nano difference and not the mechanism. Show your proof otherwise, you cannot, as they could not!

No, your point is invalid and has been for a long time. The problem is that you know too little science for me to carry on an intelligent conversation with you on the topic. It would be like trying to explain to a second grader that the numbers he sees and uses for solving problems are really complex numbers is disguise. You just don't have the foundation to understand, and I have no desire to spend my time teaching you what you should have learned in school. You are just way off the track. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm sure you are trying, but you really need to learn some physics and then you'll say, "Damn, SecularCauses was right. Now I get my error."

It would seem that, relatively speaking, your ego is much larger than your knowledge of science. That's OK, many people can only spit venomous words and falsehoods at those truly in the know on forums like this one. Keep reading, you'll eventually get it.

Good Luck!

[SecularCauses]

The experimenters had no way of knowing that it was indeed time that accounted for the nano difference and not the mechanism. Show your proof otherwise, you cannot, as they could not!

No, your point is invalid and has been for a long time. The problem is that you know too little science for me to carry on an intelligent conversation with you on the topic. It would be like trying to explain to a second grader that the numbers he sees and uses for solving problems are really complex numbers is disguise. You just don't have the foundation to understand, and I have no desire to spend my time teaching you what you should have learned in school. You are just way off the track. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm sure you are trying, but you really need to learn some physics and then you'll say, "Damn, SecularCauses was right. Now I get my error."

It would seem that, relatively speaking, your ego is much larger than your knowledge of science. That's OK, many people can only spit venomous words and falsehoods at those truly in the know on forums like this one. Keep reading, you'll eventually get it.

Good Luck!

Look, you really are completely ignorant of physics. If you look up the derivation, even for just the special theory, you will discover that the derivation is not dependent upon any mechanical clock. It is time itself that is altered, and it has nothing to do with the inner workings of a clock. I'm not going to explain this for you, you are just fat-out wrong. You can claim, with your complete lack of knowledge that I am the ignorant one, but I have a feeling I am he only one here who has earned a degree in physics. Study some physics, and then you will want to delete these ignorant comments of yours.

[tillingborn]

This was posted on Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:46 am

Look up the derivation for the equation e=mc2 in specal relativity. It really does not take much more than some understanding of algebra to follow. The traditional derivation uses a light beam bouncing off a moving mirror, analogous to a swimmer going across a moving river. It's really basic physics.

And this on Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:47 am

If you look up the derivation, even for just the special theory, you will discover that the derivation is not dependent upon any mechanical clock. It is time itself that is altered, and it has nothing to do with the inner workings of a clock.

On Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:49 am I wrote:

The point about the light clock is that the beam appears to travel further than a comparable clock it is moving relative to. Time isn't slowing down, the clock just takes longer to tick.

You didn't respond, SecularCauses. The point I made in the Two Atoms thread is that what is true of light pulses is true of all energy/matter. Physical events, things happening, are ultimately the result of emissions, absorbtions, exchanges and collisions of energy/matter; therefore all physical events take longer to occur the faster the system is moving. The twins paradox is only mystifying if you try to account for by warping spacetime; it is obvious if you can appreciate the one is younger because, literally, less has happened to them.

[SecularCauses]

This was posted on Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:46 am

Look up the derivation for the equation e=mc2 in specal relativity. It really does not take much more than some understanding of algebra to follow. The traditional derivation uses a light beam bouncing off a moving mirror, analogous to a swimmer going across a moving river. It's really basic physics.

And this on Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:47 am

If you look up the derivation, even for just the special theory, you will discover that the derivation is not dependent upon any mechanical clock. It is time itself that is altered, and it has nothing to do with the inner workings of a clock.

On Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:49 am I wrote:

The point about the light clock is that the beam appears to travel further than a comparable clock it is moving relative to. Time isn't slowing down, the clock just takes longer to tick.

You didn't respond, SecularCauses. The point I made in the Two Atoms thread is that what is true of light pulses is true of all energy/matter. Physical events, things happening, are ultimately the result of emissions, absorbtions, exchanges and collisions of energy/matter; therefore all physical events take longer to occur the faster the system is moving. The twins paradox is only mystifying if you try to account for by warping spacetime; it is obvious if you can appreciate the one is younger because, literally, less has happened to them.

I did respond. For anyone who has studied physics, they will find your remarks foolish at best, and probably childish. There is no clock used in the derivation, it is time itself that is being used. If you think you have debunked relativity theory, then feel free to try to get your silly claim published in a science journal. It won't be published. What I encouraged you to do is to pick up a science book and go through the derivation, but that appears to be beyond you. There is a reason why empirically time slows down for a clock placed in a jet and flown quickly around the globe, compared to a similar clock that has been synchronized with the clock on the jet before take-off. It's time itself that changes. There is such a huge amount of empirical evidence for this that only someone completely ignorant of science can state otherwise. GPS systems take the time difference into account between your car on the road and the time that exists in the orbitting satellite. It has nothing to do with clocks.

But, like I said, feel free to try to get your childish idea published and see how far you get.

[tillingborn]

I did respond.

I can't find it.

For anyone who has studied physics, they will find your remarks foolish at best, and probably childish. There is no clock used in the derivation,

The traditional derivation uses a light beam bouncing off a moving mirror.

AKA a light clock.

If you think you have debunked relativity theory, then feel free to try to get your silly claim published in a science journal. It won't be published.

I don't think for one moment that I have debunked Special Relativity. What you apparently fail to appreciate, even with your degree in physics, is that the theory is a mathematical model. My silly claim is an ontological issue and as such only of passing interest to science. I believe that time and spatial dimensions are relational and they do not in any physical sense exist; science, since at least the time of Newton and the hypotheses non fingo has been fairly indifferent to what gravity, energy, matter, stuff is. As I understand it, the physical analogy of the smooth, two dimensional rubber sheet and the 4 dimensional spacetime it is meant to represent was blown out of the water by quantum mechanics. Rubbery spacetime almost certainly does not exist, but it remains a very useful and accurate analogy.

There is a reason why empirically time slows down for a clock placed in a jet and flown quickly around the globe, compared to a similar clock that has been synchronized with the clock on the jet before take-off.

Empirically the clocks differ, one way to account for this is the mathematically expedient rubbery spacetime that quantum mechanics says doesn't exist.

It's time itself that changes. There is such a huge amount of empirical evidence for this that only someone completely ignorant of science can state otherwise. GPS systems take the time difference into account between your car on the road and the time that exists in the orbitting satellite. It has nothing to do with clocks.

There is a huge amount of evidence that systems travelling at different velocities experience change at different rates. It does not follow that the mathematical model of warped spacetime is an accurate picture of reality any more than Ptolemaic spheres.

[SecularCauses]

I did respond.

I can't find it.

For anyone who has studied physics, they will find your remarks foolish at best, and probably childish. There is no clock used in the derivation,

The traditional derivation uses a light beam bouncing off a moving mirror.

AKA a light clock.

If you think you have debunked relativity theory, then feel free to try to get your silly claim published in a science journal. It won't be published.

I don't think for one moment that I have debunked Special Relativity. What you apparently fail to appreciate, even with your degree in physics, is that the theory is a mathematical model. My silly claim is an ontological issue and as such only of passing interest to science. I believe that time and spatial dimensions are relational and they do not in any physical sense exist; science, since at least the time of Newton and the hypotheses non fingo has been fairly indifferent to what gravity, energy, matter, stuff is. As I understand it, the physical analogy of the smooth, two dimensional rubber sheet and the 4 dimensional spacetime it is meant to represent was blown out of the water by quantum mechanics. Rubbery spacetime almost certainly does not exist, but it remains a very useful and accurate analogy.

There is a reason why empirically time slows down for a clock placed in a jet and flown quickly around the globe, compared to a similar clock that has been synchronized with the clock on the jet before take-off.

Empirically the clocks differ, one way to account for this is the mathematically expedient rubbery spacetime that quantum mechanics says doesn't exist.

It's time itself that changes. There is such a huge amount of empirical evidence for this that only someone completely ignorant of science can state otherwise. GPS systems take the time difference into account between your car on the road and the time that exists in the orbitting satellite. It has nothing to do with clocks.

There is a huge amount of evidence that systems travelling at different velocities experience change at different rates. It does not follow that the mathematical model of warped spacetime is an accurate picture of reality any more than Ptolemaic spheres.

Go ahead then and try to get your childishness published in any science journal. Why waste your time with me? I already believe in real science, and know for a fact you are flat-out wrong. I don't give a damn what you have to write on the subject. Since you are claiming that modern physics is wrong and you can prove it, then go for it and see how far you get trying to get your theories published. In fact, you are so far off the mark on the stuff you are writing, I can't imagine that you have even taken a high-school physics class. You really are boring.

[tillingborn]

Go ahead then and try to get your childishness published in any science journal.

Like I said, ontology is only of passing interest to science.

Why waste your time with me?

It's a bit of a laugh really.

I already believe in real science, and know for a fact you are flat-out wrong.

I too believe in real science, but, for instance, it doesn't make any difference whether gravity is the result of warped spacetime, the exchange of 'gravitons' or angels pushing things together; the measurable effects, the empirical data, the science is the same.

I don't give a damn what you have to write on the subject. Since you are claiming that modern physics is wrong and you can prove it, then go for it and see how far you get trying to get your theories published.

I am not claiming that modern physics is wrong; it will probably be superceded and maybe some GUT will emerge, but that is another matter.

In fact, you are so far off the mark on the stuff you are writing, I can't imagine that you have even taken a high-school physics class.

As it happens I did A level physics.

You really are boring.

Oh well.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The experimenters had no way of knowing that it was indeed time that accounted for the nano difference and not the mechanism. Show your proof otherwise, you cannot, as they could not!

No, your point is invalid and has been for a long time. The problem is that you know too little science for me to carry on an intelligent conversation with you on the topic. It would be like trying to explain to a second grader that the numbers he sees and uses for solving problems are really complex numbers is disguise. You just don't have the foundation to understand, and I have no desire to spend my time teaching you what you should have learned in school. You are just way off the track. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm sure you are trying, but you really need to learn some physics and then you'll say, "Damn, SecularCauses was right. Now I get my error."

It would seem that, relatively speaking, your ego is much larger than your knowledge of science. That's OK, many people can only spit venomous words and falsehoods at those truly in the know on forums like this one. Keep reading, you'll eventually get it.

Good Luck!

Look, you really are completely ignorant of physics. If you look up the derivation, even for just the special theory, you will discover that the derivation is not dependent upon any mechanical clock. It is time itself that is altered, and it has nothing to do with the inner workings of a clock. I'm not going to explain this for you, you are just fat-out wrong. You can claim, with your complete lack of knowledge that I am the ignorant one, but I have a feeling I am he only one here who has earned a degree in physics. Study some physics, and then you will want to delete these ignorant comments of yours.

I have studied physics, and you are wrong! We have never been talking about the 'laws' of physics as outlined in a mathematical model/theory. From the beginning I have been talking about the PROOF. The proof is in the physical pudding, not the imagination in the cooks mind. The experiment was 'PHYSICAL,' and I'm saying that the 'PHYSICAL' proof does not hold any water as to necessarily prove the 'THEORY' or 'MATHEMATICAL MODEL.' YOU ARE WRONG, and you know it!