Relativity - Length Contraction is a FRAUD
82
In this hub, we will investigate some of the ridiculous claims made by Relativity’s Length Contraction Theory, such as:
“The DISTANCE between two objects CONTRACTS (shrinks), when a particle such a muon, travels from object A to object B, at near-c speeds.”
Relativists, or more specifically, mathematicians, have no clue what the word DISTANCE means. This is why they use the word LENGTH synonymously with DISTANCE. Mathematicians are under the impression that the “distance” between two objects, is the “length” of a straight line between them. And of course they believe in such idiocies - they are mathematicians, NOT physicists!
In physics, there is a qualitative difference between “length” and “distance”. Length is only used in the context of objects, while distance is used in the context of space. These words cannot be used synonymously, like mathematicians use them in the religion of Relativity.
LENGTH: A static concept relating to the continuous matter between two surfaces.
DISTANCE: A static concept relating to the space separating two surfaces.
Length and distance are static concepts which are used exclusively in physics. Mathematicians have absolutely no use for these static concepts, as mathematics deals exclusively with DYNAMIC CONCEPTS!
So when mathematicians, like Einstein, use the words “length” or “distance”, they are referring to the “dynamic” distance an object travels, and not a physical distance. This concept is referred to as “DISTANCE-TRAVELED”, and it is a measured quantity for the purposes of mathematics.
Anytime we express “length” or “distance” in terms of units like cm, m, km, etc., we are explicitly referring to MEASUREMENT, and not to the qualitative static “length” or “distance” of physics. And in this case, “distance-traveled” has to do with the distance a SINGLE object travels, like the leading edge of your measuring tape, in order take a measurement from one location to another. Whereas “distance”, refers to the separation between two objects and has nothing to do with measurement.
This is the reason why the mathematical dynamic distance-travelled of ONE object, has absolutely nothing to do with the physical static distance between TWO objects.
DISTANCE-TRAVELED BY ONE OBJECT
- observer dependent
- mathematical/calculated/predicted
- akin to an activity or a movie
- a quantitative dynamic scalar
- measured with a clock and calculated with speed
- has units of a predefined standard
- measured between said object and its previous imaginary location
DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS
- observer independent
- physical
- akin to a snapshot of a photograph
- a qualitative static property
- the static gap of a caliper
- is unitless
- a discontinuity in matter
The Length Contraction Nonsense of Special Relativity
Why are we so concerned with the exact physical interpretation of “length”, “distance”, and “distance-traveled”?
Because Einstein and his gang of Relativists are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. They have reified these concepts into real physical objects. Then they claim to contract/shrink them by merely using their magical conceptual equations. As explained in my Big Bang hubs, CONCEPTS CANNOT STRETCH NOR SHRINK, and “length” & “distance” are no exception. In physics, an object, like your pants, can shrink when you put them in the dryer. But the dryer can NEVER shrink the “length” of your pants. Length is a static qualitative property that can neither shrink nor expand.....no way in Hell.
The mathematicians of Relativity are using sleight-of-hand to fool you into believing that the “length” of a car, or the “distance” between two mountain peaks contracted simply because a particle zips by them at near-light speed. Does that make any sense to a rational human?
A rational human understands that only OBJECTS can contract or expand, and certainly NOT concepts, such as “length” and “distance”.
But Relativists are bold enough to claim that BOTH “length” AND “distance” shorten!
1) In the case of a car traveling at near-c, Einstein claims that the car contracts its “length”. In other words: the car shrinks!
2) In the case of a muon traveling towards the Earth at near-c, Einstein claims that it is the static “distance” the “muon has yet to travel”, that suffers contraction. In other words: the Earth’s atmosphere shrinks!
Therefore, Einstein and his gang of followers make no distinction between static “length” and “distance” in their ludicrous Length Contraction Theory.
But it turns out that their entire Thought Experiment is DYNAMIC because it involves motion. They are ultimately referring to NEITHER static “length” nor static “distance”, whenever they use the words ‘length’ & ‘distance’. They are in fact dealing with dynamic DISTANCE-TRAVELED (without even telling you), a concept that the mathematicians have perpetually confused for static “length” and “distance”.
And since Relativists are ultimately dealing with dynamic distance-traveled, then it goes without saying that:
1) The physical static “length” of an object has suffered no change when it travels at near-c speed.
2) The physical static “distance” between two objects has suffered no change when a muon zips by them at near-c speed.
Now it becomes evident why Relativists like to use the term “LENGTH CONTRACTION”, and NOT the term “OBJECT CONTRACTION”. Mathematical length and distance is a subjective quantitative scalar, whereas the shrinking of a car is an objective qualitative issue concerning physics. Relativity is a subjective discipline no different than Religion. Relativity deals with subjective observations, illusions, unattainable measurements, and gross extrapolations.
We do not need observers and their subjective measurements, calculations, and predictions to determine whether the car shrunk or not. The shrinking of the car is an issue concerning the reality of nature, rather than the observations of a PhD Nobel Prize winner. Does a PhD who wears glasses have more objective eyesight than someone without glasses? Such subjective criteria have no place in physics. As such, it is the job of the Theory to rationally explain what physical process induces the car to shrink at near-c speeds. And also how the car is alleged to shrink....do it’s atoms shrink?....does it lose atoms?
As explained in the example below, Relativists haphazardly invoked the mathematical notion of dynamic DISTANCE-TRAVELED within the realm of physics, and synonymously used this term with the static “length” and “distance” of physics. The Relativists can claim all they want, that the dynamic “distance-travelled” by a near-c particle contracted/shrank. Well, the particle is moving.....and actually moving closer to its target. So every time they take a successive “imaginary” measurement, it will be quantitatively lower than their previous measurement. But it is absurd to claim that the static “distance” of physics contracted. Not even God can perform such impossible tasks.
By mixing up these different terms, Einstein was able to swindle the public into accepting his irrational theories. Albert Einstein was not a physicist. He was a half-assed mathematician who erroneously assumed that Mathematics is the language of Physics. As you will see, he was dead wrong!
Example:
Relativity posits the following irrational claim:
1) Suppose that a sub-atomic particle, known as a muon, travels by two mountain peaks at near-c speed.
2) When the muon is traveling from peak A to peak B, the DISTANCE in front of the muon (between the muon and peak B up ahead) contracts.
A physicist would naturally ask:
a) Did the static distance between mountain peaks A and B, contract/shrink?
b) Did the mountains actually move closer to each other?
c) Did the Earth’s crust actually shrink between the mountains?
Relativists are known to give conflicting answers to such questions and dance around the issues. They cannot give you an unambiguous “Yes” or “No” answer.
Well guess what?
a) It is IMPOSSIBLE for the static distance to contract.
b) The two mountains obviously did NOT move closer to each other.
c) The Earth’s crust obviously did NOT shrink.
Hence, it is completely irrational to claim that the static distance between the muon and peak B shrank. It doesn’t matter how many muons you shoot between mountain peaks A and B.....you will NEVER run into a situation where mountain B moved closer to mountain A, or the Earth shrunk – this is impossible!!
But since the muon is in motion, this necessarily implies that it was the muon that MOVED CLOSER to peak B. This means that the Relativists are actually referring to the dynamic distance-traveled by the muon, and NOT the static “distance” invoked in their theory. But since the muon hasn’t traveled this distance yet, Relativity is contradicting itself!
Why?
Because Relativists use the dynamic “distance-traveled” by ONE object (muon), to tell you that the static “distance” between TWO objects (muon & peak B) contracted. So they are using the dynamic distance already “traveled” by the muon, in order to calculate a distance that the muon has YET to travel. So if they assert that the static “distance” in front of the muon (towards peak B) has somehow shrunk,....while the static distance between peak A and peak B remains the same,....then it is actually the muon which has MOVED closer to peak B at a very high rate. There is no other option!
Hence, the speed of the muon during its remaining distance it has YET to travel towards peak B, has necessarily exceeded the speed of light in order to make up the difference in their calculations (which assumed a shorter static “distance”). There is NO other option here. There is NO way in hell that either the static “distance” shrunk, or that the two mountains moved closer to each other! It is by necessity that the muon traveled the remaining distance towards peak B at superluminal speed. And thus we have a situation where Special Relativity is contradicting itself.
Conclusion:
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity posits the ridiculous claim that a concept, such as the static “distance” of physics, can physically contract/shrink. But when its physical interpretations are analyzed, Relativity is actually describing a scenario where the speed of light is exceeded, thus contradicting itself. Without the injected confusion of dynamic “distance” and “length = distance”, and their associated semantic loopholes, Length Contraction is instantly debunked. Relativity is a Religion that posits subjectivity and surrealism in the reality of nature, and thus has absolutely nothing to do with Physics.
So now that Relativity’s Length Contraction has been debunked, Relativists may want to change the terms they use in their theory. They may want to posit that it is the actual OBJECTS themselves which contract/shrink, and not their length/distance.
If Relativists dare to go down this path (and they never will), then the onus is on them to explain the physical mechanism which induced the atoms of the two mountains to shrink when a muon zipped by them at near-c speeds. We need a physical explanation for their bald assertions. No more dancing around with semantic arguments and surrealistic Thought Experiments.
CommentsLoading...
Yes, it is official. Now there is a warrant out for my arrest.
Last time I was in Scores there were these two Dolly Pardon-sized peaks that I swear could move closer together, up and down, side-to-side, back and forth, wax-on and wax-off, and brother, it was almost impossible to keep from probing the distance from the chair to the stage with your length.
And then she had the audacity to say she had to go right home after work because she was a Single Muon.
(Dolly Pardon-sized peaks that I swear could move closer together)
Your eyes were not deceiving you Winston. Those kind of peaks can indeed move closer together because they are malleable and separated by space.
Not only that, since they are real objects, they can expand and contract.
How you ask?
Simple.....by inserting or removing matter from them!
But I bet you saw the expanded version of them.
At least you live in reality where you interact with real objects that exist. Relativists can only dream to be walking in your shoes!
Special theory of relativity is wrong.
You can check it on http://checkmodernphysics.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the link, Lalit.
SR and GR have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of nature. They fail at the conceptual level, as demonstrated in this hub.
This is why the only thing remaining for Relativists is too keep performing subjective experiments to PROVE it true.....just like Catholics do with their exorcism experiments.
Fatfist,
Is it true that the Mathematicians are building a new conceptual C car, kind of like the old Chrysler K car, only the C car will travel at near the speed of light, meaning that if you leave New York City headed for Las Vegas that the speed of your C car will cause the static distance between those two cities to shrink, meaning that the planned time you had for the trip will actually put you somewhere out in the Pacific Ocean, drowning, so if you want to live you are forced to stop in Las Vegas way earlier than planned, so early, in fact, that you will be there in time to see yourself arrive?
And, of course, your gas mileage will be TERRIFIC.
Btw, there was an article yesterday in the New York Times about string theory. I wasn't aware that that the NYT had converted to that particular religion.
umh!!
you wrote....
wave an object? Can you “point” to a wave?
Is “rain” an object? Can you “point” to rain? Can you pick up “rain” with your hands? Can you “live” in rain?
oh my gosh!!,
and also wrote...
No more dancing around with semantic arguments and surrealistic Thought Experiments,
....
Winston,
(the speed of your C car will cause the static distance between those two cities to shrink)
Most definitely....this is the kind of shit that Relativists believe in.
And notice that they use the strategic words "length" and "distance", which are CONCEPTS....and reify them into OBJECTS, before contracting/shrinking them with their conceptual equations.
Their religion is more irrational than Christianity.
What they need to do, is GIVE US THE STRAIGHT GOODS!
They MUST state in no ambiguous terms whether they are shrinking the Earth between the 2 cities.
This is what physics is concerned with,.... objects, like the Earth.
But they dance around such real issues, and prefer instead to contract CONCEPTS, because most people haven't the slightest clue what the difference is between and object and a concept.
That's how they get away with murder!
(in the New York Times about string theory)
String Theory is easily put to rest as follows....
A string is said to be 1D.
There is no such one-dimensional object in the universe.
If these idiots claim there is....then the onus is on them to illustrate this 1D string with a diagram in their Hypothesis.
The only objects physics is concerned with are 3D objects. These are the only objects that can be said to "exist", because they have shape AND location.
That's how it's done in science.
ask,
(Is “rain” an object?)
Not for the purposes of physics!
An object is that which has shape.
What is the shape of rain in your religion? Can you please reference a picture of the object RAIN? I will PayPal you $5000 if you can accomplish this surrealistic task. If you can’t deliver, then please donate $10 to your local animal shelter. Do we have a deal??
Do concepts exist in your religion?
Do you wake up in the middle of the night when a CONCEPT bangs on your walls?
Do concepts utter threats to you while you are having a lap dance at your local strip joint?
Inquiring "minds" want to "know", because we are really concerned about your mental state.
Its not the distance between the mountaintops that shrinks, its the quantity of time and space measured that changes depending on the motion of the observer in relation to other observers.
Besides, it was Hendriks Lorentz who first suggested the contraction idea, hench its aka "Lorentz contraction".
(Its not the distance between the mountaintops that shrinks)
Agreed!!
(its the quantity of time and space measured that changes depending on the motion of the observer in relation to other observers.)
Huh? Quantity of time changes depending on the motion observer?
What does the measurement of an artificial quantity, like time, have to do with the contraction of length?
An artificial counter from a stopwatch, has absolutely nothing to do with length.
And how do you measure space? Do you stretch a measuring tape out?
Space is the static distance between objects. Space has nothing to do with length, which is a property of all objects, and not of space.
What an observer sees, hears, tastes, smells, touches, has absolutely nothing to do with how nature works. Nature just keeps chugging along whether humans exist or not. Nature NEVER bends over backwards to accomodate the whims and proofs of a human.
Nature is always observer-independent!
(Besides, it was Hendriks Lorentz who first suggested the contraction idea, hench its aka "Lorentz contraction".)
Of course he did, as did others.
But Einstein was no genius. He was a rip-off artist!
He used other people’s ideas to become a Hollywood celebrity.
Hendriks Lorentz
Its not the distance between the mountaintops that shrinks, its the quantity of time and space measured that changes depending on the motion of the observer in relation to other observers.
How to you measure time and space? I thought measurement was for length.
Normally, I wouldn't take the time to try to correct such randomly encountered misled logic, but your ambitions seem very sincere and I can't help but sympathize with anyone who is in quest of true knowledge independent of what others claim is true.
I could swiftly derive the phenomena from the Lorentz transformations, but that would assume you believe such an arbitrary mathematical set of rules holds true in our world. I could derive those transformations but that would assume you believe in the constancy of the speed of light OR maxwell's equations. All of this would be valid, but I don't believe it would convince you much, rightly so. Let me rather appeal to a direct physics argument, that although will not be convenient for figuring out the explicit mathematical relationships, will at least demonstrate that some sort of contraction must occur.
First let me correct a misled notion you have about what relativistic physicists (every successful modern physicist) are claiming. It is not that length or distance contract, that mountains move, or any other ridiculous nonsense. It is much more profound and subtler than that. They are claiming that if I am moving relative to you, my concept of length and distance are different from yours. Since it is with our own concepts that we view the world, I see the lengths of the world differently than you do. We both measure the same mountains, but with different conceptions of length, and thus get different results.
Now the argument. Experimental verification of length contraction is a sticky subject and I'm sure you can come up with many arguments against such experiments and find flaws in them, so let's skip that and rely on a more concrete experimental reality. That reality is the other famous relativistic phenomenon of time dilation. It has been experimentally proven that "time slows down for observers in motion". There is a lot of subtlety to it, and plenty of baggage, but rest assured that they have put clocks on planes, sent them zooming around earth, and when they came back the clocks from the planes read an earlier time than the clocks on the ground.
With this in mind, consider a person, let's say Charlie on a journey from planet A to planet B, both at rest with respect to each other. A person who stays on planet A, let's say Dana, measures the distance from A to B and gets some number of meters. When Charlie takes off and is moving, his clock and everything time related (biology, etc.) slow down with respect to Dana's. So if Dana observes that Charlie reaches B in a day, Charlie's clocks tell him that it has been less than that, let's say half a day. Remember that all of this up until now is an EXPERIMENTAL reality, it IS true as strange as it may seem. The relativistic formula for time dilation happens to match the experimental effect beautifully, but let's forget that for a minute.
Now consider this, the speed that Dana sees Charlie's ship fly at must be the same speed that Charlie sees Dana and planet A moving away from him at. This must also be the same speed that Charlie sees planet B approach him at, and likewise the speed that a person on B would see Charlie approach at. So if Dana sees Charlie travel at speed S and it takes one day to travel from A to B, then Charlie sees himself approach planet B at speed S too, and remember that to him it takes half a day to travel from A to B. This is all still experimental reality.
Now here's the startling conclusion. Dana and Charlie agree on the speed of his ship, but not on the time it traveled for. Therefore, they MUST disagree on the distance it traveled. Charlie will give a distance that is half that of the one Dana gives. However, since both agree that the ship went from A to B, they are giving different distances of separation between A and B. According to Charlie, the distance is halved! So what we conclude is not that A and B moved together, that's ridiculous as you point out, and surely Dana would have noticed that. No, instead we say that Dana and Charlie have different conceptions of length when Charlie is in motion. So to Charlie, the distance between A and B seems to have contracted, but to Dana the distance has remained the same. This is because Charlie has changed reference frames and it is his conception of distance that is contracting.
Since our own conceptions are the only things we observe the world with, it is meaningless to argue which distance is "real" or whether or not length is "really" contracting.
Now it turns out Einstein's mathematics beautifully predicts all of the observed experimental facts regarding these phenomena. In fact, all of modern physics relies on them. Even some everyday technologies rely on relativistic predictions to operate as well, an example is GPS. However, it is very easy to get confused and misled by the math and more commonly the popular conceptions. I feel bad for your misunderstanding because it means only one thing, that it was taught to you poorly by someone who didn't know what they were talking about or didn't know how to teach you properly.
If these things really matter to you, as I believe they do, then I suggest you pursue a proper education in physics. I think you will enjoy it. It will allow you to push these questions into the faces of the professors who provoked them, and if they are any good, they will be able to alleviate your misunderstandings. It may also allow you to form questions that the professors can't answer, nor any the professors or researchers, and perhaps those questions will lead you to come up with some successful new theory of your own. Then maybe, one day, you'll be on the other side of a situation not unlike the one here.
You might also find some luck posing your worries to online groups like physicsforums.com. If you're polite, I'm sure they would be happy to discuss such matters seriously.
Good luck, and keep questioning the universe!
Jd,
(I could swiftly derive the phenomena from the Lorentz transformations)
Please don’t. Math has absolutely nothing to do with nature, let alone physics.
Physics is FIRST AND FOREMOST the study of objects. Without objects you can't even begin to do Physics. More precisely, Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Physics does NOT study concepts, specifically, the irrational 'motion of concepts' (i.e., reification), like stretching or contracting the concept ‘length’. Only physical objects can stretch/contract. It is Philosophy, Mathematics and Religion which study concepts.....3 disciplines which have absolutely nothing to do with physics.
(that would assume you believe in the constancy of the speed of light)
You really need to understand the basics. In science we don’t BELIEVE. Only Philosophers, Mathematician, and Religionists practice this irrational behavior called “belief”. In science we explain. And we do so rationally using the Scientific Method (hypothesis & theory).
(It is not that length or distance contract, that mountains move)
You would be dead wrong. Please go read up on the scriptures of Relativity again. When a muon enters the Earth’s atmosphere, they claim the distance between the muon and the Earth contracted, that is, that the atmosphere contracted/shrunk.
(if I am moving relative to you, my concept of length and distance are different from yours. Since it is with our own concepts that we view the world, I see the lengths of the world differently than you do.)
It is irrelevant if you were drunk and saw angels appear before you. Such subjective nonsense has no place in physics; it belongs to Religion where they see Jesus doing this stuff. The issue before us is an objective one:
Did the mountains move because a muon zipped by them? Did the atmosphere shrink?
Nature has absolutely nothing to do with observers. Before God created Adam & Eve, did the atmosphere shrink when nobody was there to measure it? This is EXACTLY what physics is about – observer-free! Either it shrank or it didn’t....which is it?
("time slows down for observers in motion".)
Before you slow down time like you slow down a truck, you had better tell me if time is an object or a concept. Only objects can possibly slow down, never concepts. Since you allude that time is an object, please illustrate it with a picture on the Internet.
(they have put clocks on planes, sent them zooming around earth, and when they came back the clocks from the planes read an earlier time than the clocks on the ground)
It was a FRAUD. The actual test results were changed by H & K give the impression that they confirm theory of time dilation. The original test results were NOT published by H & K in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results. Go do your own research and educate yourself on this very important issue. Don’t be so goddamn gullible like a stupid fundamentalist Christian.
In the HK experiment, the 4 atomic clocks, each of which should have lost 59 nanoseconds, actually netted -196, -54, +166, and -97 nanoseconds. These same 4 clocks, after their westbound flights, each of which should have gained 275 nanoseconds, actually netted respectively +413, -44, +101, and +26 nanoseconds.
(The relativistic formula for time dilation happens to match the experimental effect beautifully)
No way, it does not! It only matches the THOUGHT EXPERIMENT beautifully. And it does so because it is defined to do so. All real-world experimental results have failed. Cesium atoms are affected by every single atom in the Universe. This has nothing to do with time (a concept), it has to do with the gravitational attraction between atoms. Time Dilation has been thoroughly debunked. Do yourself a BIG favour and get educated.
(Dana and Charlie agree on the speed of his ship, but not on the time it traveled for)
And the Fundamentalists AGREE that Jesus is Lord. And the Catholics agree that the Virgin Mary is Lord, etc.
So what?
Who gives a rat’s ass about who agrees about subjective, biased opinions? What the hell does that have to do with nature? The issue is resolved at the conceptual level analytically. We don’t ask for opinions on the matter.
(Since our own conceptions are the only things we observe the world with, it is meaningless to argue which distance is "real" or whether or not length is "really" contracting)
Yes it is meaningless, because ‘length’ is a static concept. It is impossible for it to contract, no matter who gives an opinion on the matter.
Only an object, like a human can contract if you put him in a trash compactor. His length is a static qualitative concept and is impossible to contract.
Read this article again, as you don’t understand what physics is about.
Ah, I am indeed mistaken, you aren't actually sincerely concerned with such matters, you're a closed minded imbecile blinded by your own ego. If you think that the experimental proof of time dilation takes the form of only one single experiment, I can't do anything more than laugh at you. Not to mention that for everyone one of the "debunkings" there is a debunk of the debunk ad nauseum. You forget that it wasn't easily that the scientific world accepted Einstein's theories. On the contrary, they thought he was a total nut. It took substantial experimental evidence to convince people because they felt it was ridiculous too. As far as mathematics are concerned, you must then also think that Maxwell's laws are bogus too (since relativity merely follows) in which case you are a poor soul because just about all of the electrical and optical phenomena you encounter have been shown to obey them, not to mention that every physicist for the past 100+ years have come to accept them. It is fact that they obey the Lorentz transformations.
Quit the observer independence bullshit. I'm talking about Lorentz transformations on inertial coordinate systems, not anthropomorphic propaganda.
At the very least it should suffice to say that relativistic predictions have allowed experimentalists to make new and accurate predictions that led to new discoveries and furthering of the fields of physics and technology. Physics is about making predictions. Everything else is interpretation and philosophy. Relativistic predictions have be shown to be very accurate in the lab, get over it. So even if it's an approximation, it works. So whatever you come up with better make the same predicitons or close to them for the situations it has shown to work for.
If relativity were complete BS then modern physics wouldn't be where it is today. You're the one who sounds like the fundamentalist conspiracy theory idiot. I don't even know why you brought that crap up since it just gave yourself away.
I'm done. I won't bother trying to help anyone who rather die than face their own ignorance. Bring this thread up when you make your success in the world of science so I'll remember it and eat my words. I'm not responding anymore so feel free to fill your next post with all the garbage you want, since you are obviously the kind that will insist on having the last word like a goddamn child. In the future, try to keep your shit in your own toilet, for the sake of the people who actually care about learning.
Good day.
Nvm. Just saw your profile. Troll on. Good one, should have seen the obviousness from this one alone and your responses. Lol.
I could swiftly derive the phenomena from the Lorentz transformations, but that would assume you believe such an arbitrary mathematical set of rules holds true in our world.
JD
God is beyond math.
It has been experimentally proven that "time slows down for observers in motion".
JD
God is beyond Time.
Since you allude that time is an object, please illustrate it with a picture on the Internet.
I took the batteries off my clock and I was still late to work.
JD,
(Not to mention that for everyone one of the "debunkings" there is a debunk of the debunk ad nauseum)
Ohhhhh, my SWEET Jd,.......you are welcome to debunk ANY of my articles, if you can!
You cannot even debunk Tom Cruise’s PROOF of Scientology, what makes you think you can debunk my articles?
Nice Religion you got there.....tell your Pastor I said Hi.
(just about all of the electrical and optical phenomena)
*******Ok, buddy, if by your NEXT post you cannot explain to the audience exactly WHAT mediates the phenomenon of electricity, and exactly WHAT mediates light, then by your own ignorance, will have shown that you haven’t the slightest clue of what you are talking about! You are nothing but a parrot follower.
(Physics is about making predictions.)
In science, we don't do predictions. That's the stuff of astrologers, palm readers, and mathematicians. In science we ONLY explain.
A Theory is an EXPLANATION. A prediction is only a DESCRIPTION: "Tomorrow there will be an eclipse at 1 p.m." Does this prediction explain WHY an eclipse happens?
You don't know the basics. Predictions ONLY have to do with the future. Explanations ONLY have to do with the past. You can only explain a consummated event and predict one that hasn't happened. How you managed to confuse the two is beyond words.
Learn this, and learn it well... A prediction IS invariably ALWAYS a description. A prediction never contains an explanation (cause, why). A prediction ONLY states that on such and such day at such and such hour something will occur. That's only a description of the event, not an explanation of why it will occur.
Well, I predict that this ball is going to fall to the floor. I also predict that it's going to rain in the next few seconds. It looks really nasty up there. But here's my most important prediction, one that only I can make. Not even God can predict this one:
I predict that I am going to eat a Mars bar in exactly 3 seconds... three, two, one...GULP!
Do I now get my name in your “science hall of fame”? When will the Nobel Prize be shipped to my house? I can’t wait to hang it on my wall.
People like you are fooled into thinking that their favorite prophet or theologian is 'predicting' when what he is really doing is regurgitating the movie he ALREADY SAW, usually, several times! The reason Twain's Connecticut Yankee was able to predict the eclipse was that he 'traveled to the past', to before the event. He had already seen the movie! Why is it that I can predict that the ball is going to fall to the ground when I let go of it if not for the fact that I have already seen the movie a thousand times?
Am I predicting, guessing, explaining, believing, knowing?
No! I am merely describing the movie I have already watched! So far I haven't explained anything. I haven't explained WHY. I just followed my experience and instinct and have a pretty sure bet in that the ball will fall to the floor again. And I’m sure I can swallow that Mars bar whole again like I did last week.
What the hell does that got to do with science? Where does that fit in the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory)? Where is the explanation as to WHY the ball fell to the floor instead of the ceiling?
Clearly, you are a TROLL who doesn’t understand the difference between science and religion.
Of course, until you can tell me the difference between a prediction and a guess, you will not have understood anything. Does Omniscience predict or guess?
A quick experiment performed by any 2 yr old toddler DEBUNKS your claim. The toddler can PREDICT just as well as YOU or Einstein can that this ball is going to fall to the floor as soon as he lets go of it. Can you explain WHY? What caused the ball to fall to the floor rather than to the ceiling? You have prediction, no different than the toddler’s, but no explanation! You have proven that you are nothing but a FOOL!
DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND YOUR FOOLISHNESS NOW?
DO YOU ENJOY COMING HERE TO SHOWCASE YOUR STUPIDITY IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE?
(I'll remember it and eat my words)
Remember, and remember well......
Space and time are not objects. They have no shape, no border, no edges which YOUR God can use to grab with his hands and bend them or stretch them.
Relativity was debunked at the instant it was conceived!
Eat your words now just like I will eat another Mars bar.....3....2....1.....GULP!
(not responding anymore)
When you can’t even rationally explain any of YOUR nonsense, what do you do? You run with your tail between your legs!
I apologize, and take it all back. I see now. Light is not an object, it is just a concept. It can't travel, only objects can travel, not concepts. So the speed of light is meaningless. Ergo, all of relativity and electromagnetism is clearly meaningless too. You don't see light, because you can't SEE a concept, only an object. So you see the objects, not some "light" that comes from them.
This is amazing, it means that all of physics has been wrong for centuries now. Physics is the study of objects and all of these people who have called themselves physicists and claimed to be working in the field were creating nonsensical mathematics about CONCEPTS. They are all just philosophers, which is the almost as bad as being fundamentalist Christians. They thought they came up with a field and called it physics, but they were wrong. You can't just invent a name for your field. Physics MUST be about OBJECTS ONLY. They haven't explained anything about objects.
By now they have spread their filth and engrained it so deep into the world's mind, just like Christians did with their God and angels and bullshit. I can't see anyway to recover from this unless we completely abandon this so called "physics" that has been taught for the last century or so. Burn all the books, and do something with all these "physicists", arrest them or better yet, send them on one of their own spaceships on a round trip to another Galaxy and back near "c". If they really believe their own little religion then it should only take a couple of minutes to them, so let them PROVE it. Meanwhile, we can give science the reinvention it needs.
This of course means Chemistry is doomed too, since they have been using the MATH that physicists called SCIENCE for ages. So we will need to do something about them.
Actually, I think I see the real problem, it's the MATHEMATICIANS. We should start by destroying math. It hasn't gotten us anywhere but to a confused population. It's RELIGION has gone on for too long now, and claimed more lives in the name of truth than any other war by Christianity or the like.
I feel as if I've woken up from a long sleep, and I'm already having trouble remembering my dream. How many more people out their understand this truth? We are going to need a lot to change this ridiculous world.
JD,
It seems that reality has finally set in for you now.
But I have a very minor complaint in your writing that bothers me sometimes.......what is your definition of TRUTH and PROOF?
I can't even say because it has no doubt been tainted by years of propaganda put forth by scientists, not to mention linguists, philosophers, and the rest of the trash of the earth. What can we expect when from birth our children are brainwashed into believing what others want them to believe about their own language. In that context, the best I can say is that proof is something that indisputably shows the truth of something else, and truth is objective reality. But that is so full of bullshit.
There is something else. You mention that Cesium atoms are affected by the gravitational attraction of everything in the universe. But what is gravity? How do OBJECTS magically move together by some abstract CONCEPT? Gravity is a cop-out term, a concept, that doesn't explain anything. Concepts can't push things. Concepts can't move things. If objects do attract, which I'm not even sure I agree that they do, then WHY? Explain it.
jd,
(truth is objective reality)
How do humans objectively resolve truth?
How can the 5 senses be objective in this regard? They are necessarily subjective!
There is NO such beast as truth, much less proof. That's why science never proves....it only explains rationally with theories.
(gravity is a concept)
BINGO!
But.....this concept embodies a MEDIATOR, a physical object that mediates this phenomenon we CONCEPTUALIZE and call gravity.
What is the physical mediator my dear jd, is it space?
How the fuck do you bend nothing? Even Einstein was NOT that stupid. He didn't even believe his own celebrity theories. He spent the last years of his life questioning all the nonsense he published. He died as an atheist of his own religion.
Please, I'm not trying to put you down,....but please wake up already!
Right and right. Truth is a concept as is proof.
So what is the object that mediates gravity? Unless there is some explanation in terms of only objects, that explains why objects attract, then don't try to tell me that an atom is "affected by the gravitational attraction of every atom in the universe". Explain "gravity" to me, without any reference to concepts, because that is not physics. If you can't then you are believing in a religion yourself. But you seem to be very wise about physics so I trust you only say things that you can EXPLAIN.
(So what is the object that mediates gravity?)
THERE YOU GO JD, NOW THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD BE ASKING YOUR PROFESSORS!!!!!!!
You had better understand JD, that nature must use a physical object to mediate gravity, and not a concept or a spirit or a ghost or the hand of God, right?
If you don’t agree with that statement, then you are in DEEP trouble. You will have to invoke BLACK MAGIC to explain nature’s phenomena. And that’s not physics. Jesus walking on water or raising the dead is NOT physics. It’s religion, so let’s keep it there, not in physics.
(Unless there is some explanation in terms of only objects, that explains why objects attract)
There is absolutely no rational explanation in the mainstream physics community today that will answer this question for you.
We need to hypothesize an object, acting as a mediator for gravity, in our HYPOTHESIS stage of the sci. Method. That’s how we do science, right?
Then we use the objects of our hypothesis, to now rationally explain how 2 steel balls attract each in the Cavendish Experiment, or how a ball falls to the floor instead of the ceiling, right?
(Explain "gravity" to me, without any reference to concepts, because that is not physics.)
YES!!!!!!!
Now you are talking rationally my friend! I hope you keep this attitude going forward in life, cause if you don’t, a charlatan will sure find ways to take advantage of you.
JD, can you conceptualize why absolutely all atoms MUST attract each other in the universe?
I mean, if we take those 2 steel balls in the Cavendish experiment and slice them down to their individual atoms, is there any reason for the atoms to NOT attract each other?
If say, I can release an individual atom in a vacuum chamber, wouldn’t you expect it to be attracted to the Earth MORE than it is attracted to the ceiling and to the glass walls of the chamber? And hence, is it rational that it will fall down to the floor? Right? If not, then you will have to explain why not?
Hence, absolutely ALL atoms in the universe are gravitationally attracted to each other, right? Isn’t this what Newton deduced and described with this F=G(m1m2)/d^2....right?
So what does this tell you?
This tells you, that there has to be a MEDIUM that physically interconnects all atoms in the universe. This is what we can reason rationally.
This interconnecting medium is the physical object, the MEDIATOR, that mediates gravity. Now, as per the Scientific Method, we need to conceptualize and model this object that interconnects all atoms, and place this object in our hypothesis. After all, we are HYPOTHESIZING what it COULD possibly be and look like in nature’s realm, right?
And we MUST ABSOLUTELY be able to illustrate it with a picture (hand drawing will suffice), right? Otherwise, we are invoking magical spirits from the bible, right?
Before I go further, do you agree that this stuff is straight forward and makes sense?
Is this analysis conforming to the scientific method? Is this stuff invoking warped space spirits or garbage like that?
"Space is not a medium by any stretch of the imagination. Space is nothing, and thus can only be scientifically described with negative predicates. If matter did not have the background of space to contour it, then it is obvious that the Universe would be a single continuous solid block of matter; with no atoms, no gaps, and no possibility of motion." --fatfist
"This tells you, that there has to be a MEDIUM that physically interconnects all atoms in the universe. This is what we can reason rationally." --fatfist
Which is it in your hypothesis? Are they all interconnected or not? You say they can't be, and then you say they must be.
So you are saying you can't explain it right now since it is an open question, fine. If you can't explain gravity to me, and you can't explain electromagnetism, than what can YOU explain? Where are you learning PURE physics from, link it, and what do they teach in terms of OBJECTS only? Where do you say people should be learning physics from. What has REAL physics shown to date?
(Which is it in your hypothesis? Are they all interconnected or not? You say they can't be, and then you say they must be.)
You are confusing the background of space with the objects that live within it. Why such a confusion?
An object is that which has shape.
Space is that which doesn’t.
What is the problem? Isn’t there spatial separation between an object and space?
Nature is a binary system.....matter or space, object or nothing, on or off, white or black, yes or no. Do you disagree? Is there a THIRD option? What is it?
The mediator between atoms is a physical object with shape. And it is WRAPPED by space. What is the problem?
(and what do they teach in terms of OBJECTS only?)
Before we proceed.......YOU must rationally explain to ME and the audience who is reading here, .......if PHYSICS is not about objects (as you claim) then WTF is it about? Please tell me what the THIRD option is if not objects wrapped in space? Is it your God’s spirit?
Please explain!!!!!!!
Otherwise, there is NO point continuing this discussion and you can go back to Sunday School.
I think you are misreading me. I agree with you, physics is about objects. But as you point out, all of the so called "physicists" have it wrong, since they deal with math and concepts. Since this is a new revelation to me, I am merely asking you to explain some phenomena in this context. To show me some application of this real physics, to point to the sources that provide real physics, and what things have been discovered in this real physics. You have done a great job of showing me what isn't real physics and what physics hasn't figured out yet. But that doesn't get one anywhere. Now that I agree, show what physics HAS done in the absence of concepts and math.
On the other note, I'm just trying to get your hypothesis about gravity correct. So there is space, and objects, agreed. Now every elementary object you claim is connected together by this gravity mediator, an object, so there are no gaps. So really there is only one single connected object in the universe which is surrounded by empty space. Is this your claim? I was only confused because elsewhere you seemed to have been against the idea of a single connected object, and here you seemed to demand it.
There is no "god" in this conversation. I agree with what you have pointed out, and wish to see what it CAN do, not what it CAN'T.
Now in the statement 'existence of God' the problem is not on the term 'exist' but rather on the term God. Bill defines exist as to have both shape and location. However we can define this term in many ways. Bill says that a thing can either be an object or a man made concept. For the purpose of my disertation, there are two types of objects, man made objects and natural objects. Similarly there are natural concepts and man made concepts. Superman is an example of an artificial object and moon is an example of a natural object. Time is an example of a natural concept wile motion is an example of an artificial concept. We conceive the fomer by intuition we concoct the latter after an observation. For the purpose of my disertation i devide 'the existence' into two categories, the existence of objects and the exist of concepts.the exirtence of objects is as defined in this articles while the existence of concepts is not being man made yet conceivable. Examples are space time consciousness mind pain and God. This natural concepts have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with physics which deals only with objects. It concerns religion and philosophy. So for the purpose of philosophy God's existence is in onother category different from that of objects. it is in the category of the existence of mind space conciousness pain sound collors and tastes. in this category the perceivor and the perceived are conceived to be linked
Kirui,
(in the statement 'existence of God' the problem is not on the term 'exist' but rather on the term God.)
No! God is a hypothesis. The theist and theologian ASSUME that God is an OBJECT that exists. They assume that God is SOMETHING rather than NOTHING. God absolutely has shape/form.
Here.....just read the Bible:
Numbers 12:8 “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the *FORM* of the LORD.”
Job 4:15-17 “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A *FORM* stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”
God is an entity that has internal structure and shape/form. Whether He is invisible or not is irrelevant. Light is an invisible object that has structure and form.
(Bill defines exist as to have both shape and location.)
No. Exist is an adjective (a concept). Exist has a meaning. The meaning alludes to an object and location. Exist does not have any properties, just a meaning. Exist is DESCRIPTIVE, and not a noun, verb, or adverb.
In reality EXIST describes that which is objectified by its static presence i.e. physically real. Exist does not predicate motion (causal action). Exist is STATIC and NOT dynamic!
(Bill says that a thing can either be an object or a man made concept.)
No, you mis-interpreted what he said.
A “thing” is a synonym for object.
Concept is not a “thing”, and hence, not an object. Concepts are only conceived by the brain of a sentient being......human, cat, horse, alien, etc.
(For the purpose of my disertation, there are two types of objects, man made objects and natural objects)
Ok, apparently you are attempting to explain to me that concepts exist, right?
In that case, before you go any further......you must define 2 terms:
1) man-made object is that which _______________
2) natural object is that which _________________
(Similarly there are natural concepts and man made concepts.)
Again, you must first define them:
1) man-made concept is that which _______________
2) natural concept is that which _________________
You need to be able to explain what you mean by these terms to others. So you must be able to unambiguously and consistent define these terms, before you tell me what it means for a concept to exist. And we don’t define term by use of examples. Examples always come after the fact.
(the exirtence of objects is as defined in this articles)
Exist = object having the extrinsic property of location.
Object: that which has the intrinsic property of shape
Location: the set of static distances to all other objects
Ok, after you define what I asked you previously.......please define Exist_For_Concept, in a similar fashion as I showed you above.
(while the existence of concepts is not being man made yet conceivable.)
What?
Are you saying that concepts are not dependent on an observer?
Are you saying that concepts can EXIST in a situation where absolutely no life can exist in the universe?
Remember: concepts are CONCEIVED. Only sentient beings can perform this action we call CONCEIVE.
(while the existence of concepts is not being man made yet conceivable. Examples are space time consciousness mind pain and God.)
Kirui,
I am no Fatfist, but I have a question. If the definition of the word exist is not the problem, why do you use that word without defining it in your claim that concepts exist outside of man's capacity to form them?
What does it mean for a descriptive thought (a concept) to exist as compared to the physical existence of a rock? What does exist mean if not object+location?
For the purpose of my disertation i devide 'the existence' into two categories, the existence of objects and the exist of concepts.
WTF
Now in the statement 'existence of God' the problem is not on the term 'exist' but rather on the term God. Bill defines exist as to have both shape and location. However we can define this term in many ways. Bill says that a thing can either be an object or a man made concept. For the purpose of my disertation, there are two types of objects, man made objects and natural objects. Similarly there are natural concepts and man made concepts. Superman is an example of an artificial object and moon is an example of a natural object. Time is an example of a natural concept wile motion is an example of an artificial concept. We conceive the fomer by intuition we concoct the latter after an observation. For the purpose of my disertation i devide 'the existence' into two categories, the existence of objects and the existence of concepts.the exirtence of objects is as defined in this articles while the existence of concepts is not being man made yet conceivable. Examples are space time consciousness mind pain and God. This natural concepts have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with physics which deals only with objects. It concerns religion and philosophy. So for the purpose of philosophy God's existence is in onother category different from that of objects. it is in the category of the existence of mind space conciousness pain sound collors and tastes. in this category the perceivor and the perceived are conceived to be linked a more generalisation to your notion of pointing at an object and naming will the participation of all common senses and not the sense of perception as in your case. To truly understand the univers you must not only rely on one common sence of sight as many physists are fond of. We must bring all the six common senses to work at the exibit stage of any disertation. For instance blue has no shape, we can neighter define it predict it or proof it we can just point to a scenario and say blue. An ET will now understand my theory of why the sky is blue because he has in mind what i mean by blue. that which help us to differenciate say collor from shape is the sixth sense of aperseption which help us to conceive through intuition. Consider the case were bill demand a sketch of God, what if the ET happens to be blind how will we help help him identify a stone from an empty space? Bill neglect touch as it involves two objects but he seems to forget that seeing also involves two objects. Seeing should also be regarded as an undifferentiated activity done to an object philosophically the same as touching it. Now can't you locate a small pain somwhere on your back even without an external object piercing you? So it has a location but what is the shape of pain? You see the problem with physics is overreliance of eyes in a vain attempt to understand everything even including quillea. This is clearly impossible as we cannot understand in cases where we are supposed to perceive. Now the bounderies of your body is perceivable to you clearly through the sense of sight but when you close your eyes and feel your body, you donnot clearly perceive your boundery and sometimes you locate sound in much the same way as you locate a pain in your body. This is to say it is resonable to say your body extends beyond the bounderies reveald through the sense of sight! It infact extends to where the sound is prodused.it includes the surrounding air and the hypothetical ropes bill tells us about. You see the the skin is just a special synaps where the contact forces are trancdused to electromagnetic forces that is why we can see the boundery as light is an elctromagnetic phenomenon. The futher we move from the inner most part of the body, the deader it gets and the more add it becomes to control the body through free will. This is why we donnot easely move the mountains. So our sensitivity of our body extends diminishingly without bound from gallaxies to galaxies! So you see there is only one person in the whole universe. It is the task of physists to explain how this guy moves parts of his body. It is my task to convince you that he does so just as i do it to our bodies, freewillingly. So bill i dont say that God is an object but rather his body is YES a physical object. the question; who then is God where is he is best answered with another question who am i then where am i located in my own body. You see that is a question which even God himself wonders!
Hi Kirui
(to truly understand the univers you must not only rely on one common sence of sight as many physists are fond of. We must bring all the six common senses to work at the exibit stage of any disertation.)
The process of understanding has nothing to do with senses. Understanding always stays at the CONCEPTUAL level. This means, that we use critical thinking and analysis in order to reason and develop a CONTRADICTION-FREE rational explanation.
The human senses are subjective as they have physical limitations. Critical Thought has no physical limitations, other than those chosen by the individual. If an individual is lazy and narrow-minded, that is his problem.
(we can just point to a scenario and say blue.)
No! You cannot point to scenarios (concepts). You can only point to objects. You cannot point to any color. Color is CONCEIVED by the brain. Your conception of RED is completely different that another person’s, especially a color-blind person. Each person has a variance of rods & cones in their retina. Colors such as Red, are subjective!
(An ET will now understand my theory of why the sky is blue because he has in mind what i mean by blue. that which help us to differenciate say collor from shape is the sixth sense of aperseption which help us to conceive through intuition.)
No! Before you talk about colors, you have to explain your theory of light. What is light? How is light mediated? Then you can explain colors.
Pointing to the sky and saying BLUE, is not an explanation. It is only a subjective DESCRIPTION. Understand the difference.
(what if the ET happens to be blind how will we help help him identify a stone from an empty space?)
Extremely easy. A living entity that is blind is still able to reason that there is either SOMETHING or NOTHING. There is either OBJECTS or SPACE. Either something has SHAPE, or it doesn’t. There is NO in-between something and nothing. This is basic stuff.
There is no need to SEE or TOUCH anything. But the fact remains, that even Ph.D’s who are not blind can’t even accomplish such a basic feat because they are BRAINWASHED!!!! From babies, we are brainwashed to believe in spirits and souls by our parents. This deludes our sense of REALITY. It’s like being a prisoner in Vietnam and locked up underground and brainwashed how to think and what to believe. SOCIETY DOES THIS TO ALL HUMANS. Do you understand that or not???
(Bill neglect touch as it involves two objects but he seems to forget that seeing also involves two objects.)
Bill’s definition are all observer-independent. No see and no touch, etc.
(pain ..... it has a location but what is the shape of pain?)
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
Pain is a concept – a VERB! Pain is mediated by objects, the cells/muscles/skin etc. on your body. The atoms at that location on your body are in a specific motion which sets in motion the atoms of your nervous system. Then the atoms of your brain are set in motion, since everything is connected, and you conceive and experience the SENSE of pain.
Pain has NO location. Pain has NO shape. Only the atoms in that area of your body do. Understand?
(the problem with physics is overreliance of eyes )
No! Physics is observer-independent in its Hypothesis and Theory. Only Research & Engineering rely on observations and TRIAL & ERROR in order to develop medicine, technology, etc. That’s why there is always problems with drugs, and that’s why the space shuttle has exploded so many times. Trial & error has nothing to do with science.
(the contact forces are trancdused to electromagnetic forces )
Force is a concept. Forces do not exist. Objects in motion coming into contact with other objects, is what we call force – a verb! Get your language straight.
Force is what something does, not what something is.
(see the boundery as light is an elctromagnetic phenomenon)
We can observe the EFFECTS of light as an EM phenomenon because light is an OBJECT that is in periodic motion. The theory supports E and M because light is a rope whose periodic motion is a torquing motion.
When the atoms in our retina get torqued by the connecting ropes, the atoms start to spin/shake etc. and send the same signal to our brain via the retinal chord. The atoms in our brain start to spin/shake etc. and this mediates the image we sense. Our BRAINS sees....NOT our eyes!
(So you see there is only one person in the whole universe. It is the task of physists to explain how this guy moves parts of his body.)
Aristotle ran into the same problem because he had no clue what gravity was. So he invented the Unmoved Mover, a robot God who only moves. Now we understand gravity. Matter is ETERNALLY in motion. Read my article here to understand why:
http://hubpages.com/hub/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIBLE-Spa
You need to be able to explain phenomena in order to understand the universe. Otherwise you’ll be a religionist all your life.
(i dont say that God is an object but rather his body is YES a physical object.)
Yes, God is ASSUMED to be an object (with shape/form) that exists. Just like I showed you in the Bible previously.
(You see that is a question which even God himself wonders!)
God does not wonder that. It is impossible for God to exist.
Why?
Because Creation of space & matter is impossible. Read my hubs to understand why.
Kirui,
There is no God. It is impossible for REALITY to sustain a God with the level of arrogance exhibited in the Bible.
Now, let's just grow up and smarten up, ok?
Wow, It's like I was totally taken over by the writer to be used as a straw man for his completely stupid arguments. It's like I learned all his turns of phrase and over use of CAPS LOCK.
If I wanted to see a retarded trucker self masturbate online I could have gone way better places.
Oh wait, I am once again being used! When will it ever end!
So what is your argument, JD?
....and I'm not sure which 'trucker' you are referring to.
The posters here have been physicists, computer scientists, lawyers, medical doctors, engineers, and lab technicians. As for myself, why I'm a fisherman. I specialize in catching great white sharks. Ever been bitten by great white, JD?
Hey JD, you still haven't answered my question about sharks.
I would really like to extend my "warmest" heart-felt apologies to YOU and to your perverted PASTORS who do you every now and then. I never intended for my hubs to cause you so much emotional distress....so many sleepless nights....so much mental torture....that you need to come here every few months and vent your frustrations. Every single knowledge you held so dear to your heart is now gone forever and ever amen!
Don't worry, there is a bright side for you. I'm sure that a regiment of private personal sessions with your beloved Pastor in the basement or in the washroom of your Church will make you "feel" much better. It is said that the "warmth" of the touch can cure all ills. It has for you in the past, and I'm sure you can use the process of INDUCTION to "predict", or God forbid, "prove", that it will do the same for you in the future.
Good luck, and I extend my warmest regards :-)
P.S. Disregard my shark question....what has bitten you can obliterate any great white shark, or even a megalodon!
Don't feel offended fatfish. In search engine, I found this very same article in a set of excellent debunks of modern physics and I thought it war Bill who wrote it! But there were no spaces for coments I would havd said something.
Kirrui,
This is the same argument bill uses to debunk the garbage of relativity. So yes, you will find me making similar arguments and using thread theory in my explanations throughout my hubs. This should be no surprise. I make use of what is "reasonable" and "makes sense", not what is "popular indoctrination". Most people didn't even understand his video. I took his argument and expanded the explanations so people can understand it better.
Sadly, people still think you can stretch a "concept", like love, just like you can stretch bubblegum.
Relativity has been debunked by thousands of people in the past century. But mostly with empiricism & mathematics. Bill was the first to debunk it at the conceptual level.....at the level of its fundamental DEFINITIONS. Most people haven't a clue it is language and "language alone" which determines what a human being is supposed to understand.
99.9% of people take language for granted. No wonder we can stretch time, space, and other concepts which are nothing. This is why hardly anyone understands this debunking of relativity. I just hope that my explanation is clearer than bill's.
My earlier coments concerning God with the name kirui was misplaced. This was my first coment on hubpages. I thought I was comenting on bill's article; 'why God does not exist proof' so I went out of the topic.
no problem, kirrui
You say well, relativist confuse object with legth. They talk of finit space. So we can ask; what is the volume of space! Legth can contract if there is a legth of legth. This is amusing. Finite space implies legth of legth or volume of volume!
Relativists also confuse event with its duration giving birth to the cousin of legth contraction called time dillation. I notice that you have not attacked this one anywhere. They talk of after time, before time, outside time etc
lastly they commite a space time confusion. Combining all this means that they confuse duration with a portion of an object. They say an event that took place before big bag is like an object that exist at north of north pole. So an event is an object! Monday is a place, a portion on a surface.
They measure distance in seconds without specifying anything moving. The sun is theusday! The sun is eight minutes since here! I think relativists should go back to standard one.
kirrui,
"So we can ask; what is the volume of space! "
Area and volume are not physical parameters. They are mathematical dynamic concepts. Area and volume have nothing at all to do with physics. In physics, we work with objects, not with abstract mathematical concepts.
Only objects have observer-defined concepts we call volume.
This notion of volume is inapplicable to space, and the mathematicians never realized it because they treat space as an ocean, as a medium.
When an astronaut is in space, he does not displace particles of space. He does not displace anything. An astronaut does not travel thru or IN space as if wading thru water or air. An astronaut can only travel TO an object because space = nothingness. An astronaut travels TO the Moon; not thru nothing.
Space can only be described/predicated with "negative" terms....boundless, borderless, limitless, colorless, nothing, etc.
"called time dillation. I notice that you have not attacked this one anywhere"
That is a hub I want to do in the future.
Relativists are always correct. Whenever you ask them a question that is outside the context of their mathematical realm, they always reply that it is meaningless.....we cannot hope to know God's ways.
SR and GR only follow from the notion that you can't travel faster than light. If you agree with this ultimate speedlimit you automatically agree with Einstein (just do some research).
If not, I guess you say you can travel faster than light?
baited.... aaargh! :-)
Relativist,
“SR and GR only follow from the **notion** that you can't travel faster than light.”
You notions, feelings, affections, beliefs, faiths, opinions, or how quickly your heart beats when your Pastor sticks his hand down your pants......are of NO concern to reality. Nature pisses on people whose eyes light up when their Pastor affectionately rubs their pimple-ridden flat tush!
How do you KNOW that something cannot travel faster than light? Can you EXPLAIN WHY??
Example: Car A cannot travel faster than 520 mph because of air resistance, even tho there is still more pedal left.
WHY= air resistence!!
YOUR TURN!
An object in space cannot travel faster than light because________________________
Fill-in the blanks. Otherwise you are blowing smoke out of your arse.
......and don’t tell me the answer which your Priest whispered into your ear while he was man-handling you in the bathroom stall, ok?
“If you agree with this ultimate speedlimit you automatically agree with Einstein”
No, I don’t agree with any speed limit. You are full of it. I have never seen/touched/heard/tasted/smelled any speed limit for light.......have you?
Should I believe what your Priest of Relativity whispered to you in the bathroom stall?
Nature could care less what you measured. Numbers are concepts invented by human apes and have no meaning to reality.
Reality is only concerned with WHY!!!
WHY WOULD LIGHT HAVE A SPEED LIMIT?
....air resistance perhaps?......collisions with other 0D particles perhaps?......God won’t allow excessive speeding on His highways perhaps?
What is the answer?
“ (just do some research).”
I call BS on you!
In fact, I will PayPal you $10,000 US if you can post any of Einstein’s explanations or from The Church of Relativity, which explains WHY there is a speed limit. Not what the speed is.....but WHY is there is a limit, AND why there SHOULD be a limit!!
Please post the WHY from any of your Bibles, scrolls or scriptures from your Religion.
Understand??
relativist,
"baited"
Yes indeed.
You have baited, hooked, and reeled yourself in....I didn't have to do anything but sit here and watch you!
Now you are finished!
OMG, why do you send you foolish apes here to waste my 0D time?
Epic
You ain't seen nothing yet, prometheus.
I'm sure Mr. relativist will be more than happy to:
a) Show us a 0D photon, or at least point to a picture of it on the net.
b) Be HONEST and tell us that Relativists have claimed the existence of particles called ‘tachyons’ which ALWAYS travel faster than light.
c) Be HONEST and tell us that Relativists have EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED the speed of light to be VARIABLE via the Sagnac Effect. They showed that if light beams are sent in opposite directions round a disc rotating with speed v, the beam travelling in the opposite direction to the direction of rotation travels at c+v relative to an observer on the spinning disc, while the beam travelling in the same direction travels at c-v, relative to an observer.
I am so happy clowns like posting their ridiculous Religious claims here. They are absolutely NO different than the Christian Fundies who contradict their Religion every time they utter a sentence.
Can any Relativist post a single sentence here without contradicting their Religion?
Nope!
Yeah, PrometheusKid you haven't seen anything yet!
If relativity is true, then Christianity would have to be a false faith? Without a basis for right and wrong, Christianity would have no merit; in a mathematical sense, a meaningless set of values.
Christianity is faith in an absolute morality; therefore, incompatible with personal preferences of relativity.
For example,
I may like something, but claim it is wrong or vise versa.
I like my coffee strong, and my women weak.
I like my women strong, and my coffee weak.
What sentence is right. It's relative!
Hey Fatfist, explain the physics of this! I think we both know that your hub encompasses all of this video.
PromethiusKid shows up at the 00:16 mark.
lol what the hell is this stupid rant it's kinda obvious that it was written by a redneck fisherman unless of course it's intended for retarded trolling...
@Nick.....finally we have a rational poster here!
Yeah Nick, I actually am a fisherman. Redneck?? Ummm...I dunno, but last time I checked, my neck was white.
I caught 3 pike and 6 salmon this week, enough to make a dozen or so fish pies. How come this doesn't meet your Religous standards?
Fatfist,
Time is the funniest idea to me. According to theory, time is only the same to those who are stationary, but if I move toward you them time shortens but if I move away time lengthens.
The hilarious aspect of this is that depending on the perspective, past, present, and future are all occuring as now.
And, of course, we proved this by flying around the world with an atomic clock and comparing it to the atomic clock on the gound and finding a difference in times.
Winston,
Relativists will always quote authority in order to shut you up. But they will NEVER quote the actual results of the H&K time dilation experiment because it destroys their Religion.
In the HK experiment, the 4 atomic clocks, each of which should have lost 59 nanoseconds, actually netted -196, -54, +166, and -97 nanoseconds. These same 4 clocks, after their westbound flights, each of which should have gained 275 nanoseconds, actually netted respectively +413, -44, +101, and +26 nanoseconds.
H&K test results: cartesio-episteme net/H&KPaper htm
Report states that the actual test results were changed by H&K to give the impression that they confirm theory of time dilation. You gotta do whatever it takes to protect your Religion of Relativity, right?
The original test results were not published by H & K in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results.
Time is not a physical object. It cannot suffer physical transformations like the atoms of atomic clocks do when they are in motion and affected by the Earth gravitational attraction.
I can slow my clock with a magnet close to it. The closer the magnet, the slower the clock runs. Does magnetism slow time, .....or does its physical interaction with the clock's mechanism 'restrict' its motion? Which one of the two affects the clock?
Wouldn't you expect to move 100 lb dumbbells with ease at 10,000km above the Earth?
Does this mean that a 'concept' (time) moved faster, or that you moved your arms faster?
Of course.....the Religious Fanatics knows as RELATIVISTS will decree that a spirit they call "time" actually slowed down or sped up its "motion".....what morons!!!
Fatfist,
My last comment was a response to a television show on PBS (NOVA) where the relativists' ideas were being presented as factual. They went into great lengths to discuss how "time" was like a loaf of bread, and depending on the angle of the slice how "now" was relative to the angle being viewed - concluding that past, present, and future were all inclusive in the time "loaf" and what was seen was dependent upon the observer's angle.
It seems to me that much of the underpinnings of both quantum mechanics and relativity has to do with existentialism as the need for observer appears critical to all their thought processes.
In their case I think they are right - it all exists only in their minds. ;-)
Ha ha.....yeah, Relativity is a religion...nobody can argue otherwise.
I have a question. Was the Hafele Keating experiment done only once or was it repeated in the future? If it was repeated, what were the results then?
@abc,
You can google it; I’m sure this experiment was done plenty of times by Relativists. But would you BELIEVE their results?
Does it make sense to allow Christians to perform experiments to prove that Jesus exists? Does it make sense to allow child molesters to conduct experiments on themselves to “prove” they are not attracted to children....and allow this irrefutable “evidence” in court?
What is the purpose of experiments, when humans are fallible....when humans are biased....when humans ALREADY KNOW the answer BEFORE they conduct the experiment??
I can conduct an experiment to “prove” to you that gravity is caused by the Earth moving upwards toward us, and not us falling towards it. Here.....watch me jump......see? The Earth moved upwards towards me. You cannot prove it didn’t....no way!! In fact, there is a scientific theory which bases gravity on this principle, so you’d be arguing with “authority” and “mathematics” if you went against it.
The Scientific Method makes no provision for experiments or proofs or beliefs or AUTHORITY or math or other subjectivities. Science is objective. Theories only explain natural phenomena, and they do so rationally....without contradictions.
Do the following experiment at home. Swing a ball at the end of a string around yourself. As you give the string more slack, the ball will be farther away from you and takes more 'time' to complete an orbit. You have just dilated time! Mars does it every day of the year! Its year is 687 Earth days. Therefore, if you were living on Mars, you would have to adjust your watch every day to match your twin brother's time here on Earth!
In Math, they MEASURE concepts. In Science, we don't use Math, but to show that the mathematicians are idiots, we COUNT objects! Hence, the mathematician likes to EXTRAPOLATE conclusions from calculations. A physicist just adds up all the beads (objects) in the basket, because this is what we objectively have before us.....we don’t have ‘time’ before us. We cannot “count” time, which is a concept....there is nothing to count. We only infer time and extrapolate conclusions from it. But we can count beads or grains of sand, which are objects.
Time (concept) has to do with math, and beads (objects) has to do with Physics.
Take an HOURGLASS and place it in orbit around the Earth. Will the grains of sand fall faster, slower or at the same rate as one on the surface of the Earth?
Fatfist, this is all quite thought provoking. I wish I had time to pop in more regularly!
You've put a lot of time into all this and I appreciate it.
I guess I have a few more questions if you don't mind.
If what you're saying is the case:
1) How is it that physics could go so wrong and end up spending BILLIONS on things like the LHC trying to find particles based on what comes down to mathematical hunches - and do you think it's possible to have some kind of watchdog to prevent things from getting so out of hand?
2) Do you think the LHC is useful at all? Even if they're not finding the Higgs etc, isn't the LHC still providing useful information or are they just exaggerating the positives to avoid the embarrassment of admitting they've barked up the wrong tree?
3) At what point do you think the establishment stopped doing real physics and branched off into madness?
4) Aren't theoretical physicists at least being honest by calling themselves just that - 'theoretical' physicists? I saw a video a couple of weeks ago (I can't remember where) of Brian Cox. He was being quite open and honest about the issue and admitted the latest research is based on maths and could all end up being complete bollocks.
I hope you don't mind me hitting you up with all the questions. If you can be bothered answering any I thank you in advance!
Best regards.
By the way, what happened to your Plantinga hubs? I never had a chance to read them.
Happy new year to you Fatfist and to everyone.
Spastic,
I've been distancing myself from propositional logic arguments for quite some time. I have found that these arguments inevitably lead to circularities where there is no understanding to be had by the proponent of the argument, as well as the audience. This is why I no longer support such arguments. All arguments having to do with reality must definitely stay within the realm of reality.
This means that we need to understand the meanings of our KEY terms and how they can be used to critically reason an explanation for "alleged" events of reality....like "creation", for example.
Furthermore, existence is always hypothesized and never proven or evidenced. This is what separates science (reason) from religion (proof/evidence).
Happy New Year to you, Spastic, and to everyone in HubPages!!
Fatfist:
"The posters here have been physicists, computer scientists, lawyers, medical doctors, engineers, and lab technicians. As for myself, why I'm a fisherman. I specialize in catching great white sharks. Ever been bitten by great white, JD?"
I'm a baiter down at the piers. I have have my Bachelors and now studying for my Masters. I hope to be a Master Baiter soon.
WINSTON:
"My last comment was a response to a television show on PBS (NOVA) where the relativists' ideas were being presented as factual. They went into great lengths to discuss how "time" was like a loaf of bread, and depending on the angle of the slice how "now" was relative to the angle being viewed - concluding that past, present, and future were all inclusive in the time "loaf" and what was seen was dependent upon the observer's angle."
Yes this was four part series entitled the Fabric Of the Cosmos hosted by Brian Green. It is about his book of same name.
The loaf of bread was to represent space-time as an object. He described an alien on a bicycle and a man at a gas station. When they are both standing still the man and the alien are on the same time line. As soon as either one is in motion, they are each on different time lines.
Any way you slice it the 'theory' is toast as far as I am concerned.
Monkeyminds,
'Fabric Of the Cosmos hosted by Brian Green...The loaf of bread was to represent space-time as an object.'
The only thing that these Priests of Relativity and Quantum need to do is to illustrate THEIR HYPOTHESIZED 'spacetime' object. If spacetime is indeed an object, as these clowns allege, then it necessarily has shape. A simple hand drawing on a bar napkin will suffice.
object: that which has shape
As it turn out, spacetime is a metaphor these clowns use to indirectly relate phenomena to a non-existent mediator which causes them.
Einstein was one of these clowns. He converted the 19th C aether into the 20th C spacetime.
And I quote dear Pastor Einstein... “According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable”
What does spacetime consist of?
Events....where ‘event’ = a point in spacetime. All circular and contradictory reasoning, LOL.
When Michelson & Morley did their aether experiment, they purposely sought to demonstrate that light did not rub against the walls of the aether (i.e. spacetime). The scientific community rejected aether/spacetime back then, based on what the Michelson-Morley experiment 'proved'. Now these Priests are preaching aether/spacetime again. Religion at its finest!
"As it turn out, spacetime is a metaphor these clowns use to indirectly relate phenomena to a non-existent mediator which causes them."
Yeah, it's like saying,"Space is where we put things and time is when we do it."
Ain't math wonderful? One can use it to answer any question, non-sensical or not.
How long is a piece of rope? Twice the distance from the middle to one end.
Your vehemence toward Einstein is a little silly. His Nobel prize was won for work outside relativity which described a phenomenon you could observe in an everyday glass of water. So, no, calling him some sort of half-assed mathematician rather than a physicist is as unfair as it is ignorant.
Simple fact of the matter is that relativity is a theory which fits countless observations. You call observations 'subjective' several times. I would venture to ask, by what standard do you propose we pass judgement over a theory? The only option I know of other than judging a theory based on whether or not it satisfies observations is simple deductive analysis. This is what you seem to be doing here. You are not doing physics, rather you are doing something which predates physics. You are doing philosophy.
I like philosophy, and part of the reason I like it is that people who do it well have very well-honed OPINIONS for which to argue. They spend a lot of time thinking up rationales for their beliefs, which is wonderful (I wish we all could be paid to do that!), but ultimately there will be good arguments to be made for both sides of a debate involving only opinion and not the brute fact of observable events. Philosophy is subjective. What you're doing is not as objective as you seem to think.
Relativity theory may not be quite right, or better put, is not a comprehensive description of the universe. But one thing is for certain at this point: if we ever 'finalize' physics, it will include a set of equations which look a great deal like those of relativity. Without them, we could never describe several observations to be made within our universe.
Anonymous,
“relativity is a theory which fits countless observations”
The Ptolemaic Theory of the Universe also fit countless, if not, ALL observations! If fact, the Ptolemaic Earth-centric model was MORE accurate than the Copernican model by leaps and bounds, and it matched observations MORE precisely. Therefore, according to YOUR limited reasoning (i.e. argument from observations ....aka Argument from Ignorance), YOU conclude that the Earth the center of the Universe!
So much for your observations.
If you were to take an entry level course in the Scientific Method, you’d quickly understand that scientific theories do not “fit” observations, like OJ Simpson’s glove “fits” for some members of the audience and doesn’t ‘fit’ for others.
There is NO provision for observation in a Hypothesis (assumption) or Theory (rational explanation). Science is about explaining....not gawking and drooling. Only Religious idiots OBSERVE Jesus walk on water and drool. But you are free to argue otherwise.
“by what standard do you propose we pass judgement over a theory?”
It is irrelevant what I, you or God propose....individually or collectively. Science is an OBJECTIVE field of study. There is no provision for my or your opinions....and we don’t go to the ballot box to vote (i.e. pass judgement) on the issue. If you wish to PASS JUDGEMENT, become an ordained minister. In Science we don’t pass Judgement, like the good Pastor does with his Bible in hand. Democracy, Religion and Politics have nothing to do with science.
A Theory is objective all on its own, if and only if it is RATIONAL. It must illustrate all its objects that interact in nature to mediate phenomena......it must define its key scientific terms unambiguously, ...and it must explain natural phenomenon in a non-contradictory manner. This is the objective and observer-independent standard of the Scientific Method. We don’t ask Pastor Einstein for his opinion on what Science is. This is Science 101....you should study it one day.
“You are doing philosophy.”
Ohhhh....this will be good. The audience had better stick around and watch Mr. Anonymous eat his words and make a fool out of himself. Either that, or he will run away with his tail between his legs. This will be fun!
Ok, anonymous.....here we go:
1) Does space warp or bend, like a hammock? If so, what is space, an object or a concept?
2) Please use the General Theory of Relativity to answer this question. Let’s keep it simple for you....assume the universe consists of only the Earth and a baseball, and God is holding the baseball still (motionless) in His hand. Now God let’s go of the ball without moving it, and He disappears. What happens to the ball? Does it stay motionless where it is or does it move? And please explain WHY using Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, Christianity or any other Religion you like.
By attempting to answer these 2 SIMPLE questions, anonymous will show the audience that he is not doing Philosophy...oh no.....he will show that he is doing Religion. Either that or he will run away from the questions. Let’s see.....
Anonymous: ‘Relativity theory may not be quite right’
Anonymous: ‘or better put, is not a comprehensive description of the universe’
WHOOP WHOOP....BELLS, WHISTLES, LIGHTS!!!!
Anonymous already gave us the answer. Relativity cannot answer ANY question about the Universe.
RELATIVITY = RELIGION
Thank you for supporting my argument, anonymous.
Did you know that, according to the theory of general relativity, the passage of time slows with proximity to massive objects? Did you know that every communications satelite my colleagues and I have designed has taken this into account, that the clocks utilized by these satelites must be calibrated in accordance with very precise RELATIVISTIC calculations? Finally, did you know that the internet as you know it would not function as it does if my colleagues and I did not use the 'Religion of Relativity' in order to sync the clocks of those satelites with clocks here on earth? To sum up, your rants here WOULD NOT EXIST, or at least would be confined to your room, if real scientists and engineers were so dismissive of relativity.
Ptolemy was good at predictions until better measurement by Tycho Brahe, that is BETTER OBSERVATIONS, allowed Kepler to modify the Copernican system into something much more accurate (and more importantly something which didn't require the constant addition of new epicycles every generation).
Stop arguing with a straw man, and argue with me. If your next post attempts either a) argue ad hominem or against me rather than my arguments or b) manipulate my words into an argument which is easy for you to attack but is not the argument I put forward, then I will not reply again.
Anonymous,
“then I will not reply again”
And now that our dear friend ‘anonymous’ had his derriere handed to him in my last post, he stealthily devises an excuse (that his mother was insulted) in order to EXIT the discussion before he is embarrassed any further in front of the whole world. You are too predictable, my friend. All the altar boys in your Congregation behave exactly the same.....all hot air, temper tantrums, screams, cries for help, and running for safety under the Priest’s robe. Yep, too predictable.
Hey....anonymous....you fool nobody dude! You ain’t no beaten or abused woman, so quit crying like a raped damsel in distress. Why don’t you be a man and hold up that chin high with proud might, and come here and teach this idiot fatfist a thing or two about Relativity and Physics.
See....I told you that you would either:
a) Showacase YOUR Religion here,
Or
b) Run away with your tail between your legs!!
So please, do NOT post any more gobbledygook about the computers or techno-toys your mommy bought you for Christmas. FOR THE SECOND TIME, JUST ANSWER THE 2 EASY QUESTIONS POSED TO YOU ABOUT RELATIVITY....
1) Does space warp or bend, like a hammock? If so, what is space, an object or a concept?
2) Please use the General Theory of Relativity to answer this question: Let’s keep it simple for you....assume the universe consists of only the Earth and a baseball, and God is holding the baseball still (motionless) in His hand. Now God let’s go of the ball without moving it, and He disappears. What happens to the ball? Does it stay motionless where it is or does it move? And please explain WHY using Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, Christianity or any other Religion you like.
Don’t tell us what your mommy bought you for Christmas.....don’t tell us what you had for lunch yesterday.....don’t change the subject or go off in tangents. Just answer the extremely EASY questions 1) and 2).
The audience is waiting to see if you can redeem yourself, anonymous.
This will be my last post, as you have no idea how to argue with someone without getting personal. If you had simply restated your question containing the fictitious analogy designed to prove some philosophic point about a world other than the one in which we live (you obviously 'kept it simple' to your own advantage, not mine), I might have taken your bait and continued this debate. However, you did not simply restate your questions, you did exactly what I told you not to do if you really desired an intellectual debate. Since you did this, I can only surmise you do not wish for an intellectual discourse, but instead for something more base... closer to politics, or dare I say it, the expression of religious dogmatism.
Did you know that the source of the nuclear power which potentially is feeding the device on which you author these rants was described and predicted by relativity theory (before there was such a thing as a nuclear power plant, mind you)? Not only can you thank relativity for the concept of nuclear power, but keeping such power plants running requires very precise relativistic calculations. Thus, nuclear power plants would not run and power your computer properly without the tireless efforts of smart engineers using relativity theory to the advantage of humankind. Again, I am forced to conclude that your rants would not exist outside of your room if not for relativity theory.
What's with these guys (and their colleagues)about GPS?
I ran into this on Less Wrong and elsewhere. "Time slowing down in a gravitational field" my ass.
Anyways, don't radio signals from beacons xmit to the sats all they need to know?
(Did you know that, according to the theory of general relativity, the passage of time slows with proximity to massive objects)
Hey, anonymous, did you know that everything in relativity theory is based upon the perspective of an observer?
Time cannot slow down as it is nothing - only man's lame brains can interpret the action as an apparent slowing of time from the observer's perspective.
Something happens, all right, but it has nothing to do with time - unless it is their mothers putting shortsighted relativists into time-outs for making irrational claims.
Anonymous,
“This will be my last post”
I thought your previous post was supposed to be your Official Last Post. You are NO different than a Jehovah’s Witness.....you keep coming back to preach like a parrot without understanding one iota of what you are saying. Your Pastor did a good job with your brain.
“designed to prove some philosophic point about a world”
Is gravity some “philosophic” point to you? Is the fact that a ball falls to the floor instead of the ceiling, some “philosophic” point in YOUR Religion??
Hey dude....you are a brain-dead parrot!!
You haven’t the slightest clue what reality is all about. You cannot tell the difference between reality, fantasy, philosophy and religion. You can thank your Pastor for such a progress in your life.
“you obviously 'kept it simple' to your own advantage, not mine”
My advantage? What does gravity have to do with MY advantages? Am I God to you? Do I control gravity? Do you worship ME or your Pastor?
Does a ball fall to the Earth.....YES or NO?
Can a brain-dead parrot such as yourself even begin to understand such a simple question about reality?
A: Of course not. You think that this question has to do with Philosophy & Religion.
You are a troll man.....you came here to yell and scream because fatfist destroyed your beloved Religion of Relativity which you have been worshipping like a raped altar boy all of your pathetic life.
YOU ARE ONLY GIVING THE AUDIENCE EXCUSES BECAUSE YOU’VE BEEN CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN. YOUR RELATIVITY IS USELESS TO ANSWER SUCH A SIMPLE Q ABOUT GRAVITY. SO YOU NEED AN EXIT DOOR FROM THIS INTELLECTUAL CONVERSATION.
“an intellectual debate”
YES....BINGO....an INTELLECTUAL debate!! Answer questions 1) and 2) intellectually and objectively i.e. Scientifically!
Would the ball fall to the Earth, according to Eintein’s General Relativity....YES or NO??
I mean, this is a question about YOUR claims....it’s a Q of reality, not philosophy.
Hey dude.....if this Religion of Relativity is sooooo dear to your heart.....if it warms up your hairy tush so nicely at night.....why don’t you answer these simple 2 questions and show fatfist that he is an idiot. Embarrass this fatfist fool, why don’t ya?
Here is an incentive for you. If you can answer those 2 questions, I will PayPal you $5000 USD. Why don’t you bring here some of the members of your Congregation to help you answer them. Are you scared???
Why are all the Relativists scared to answer simple questions about gravity? Only Religionists run away from questions concerning their faith.
I don't see where the relativity stuff comes in. Although WIKI says this:
(To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks.[4])
[4]That article says that the difference in time from the satellite and earth clock is due to gravitational forces.
Back to 1st WIKI:
"Three satellites might seem enough to solve for position since space has three dimensions and a position near the Earth's surface can be assumed. However, even a very small clock error multiplied by the very large speed of light[37] — the speed at which satellite signals propagate — results in a large positional error. Therefore receivers use four or more satellites to solve for both the receiver's location and time. The very accurately computed time is effectively hidden by most GPS
applications, which use only the location. A few specialized GPS applications do however use the time; these include time transfer, traffic signal timing, and synchronization of cell phone base stations."
The sat sends a time stamp and position of sat. The receiver compares this to it's time and location. Where does relativity come in?
"The x, y, and z components of position, and the time sent, are designated as \scriptstyle\left[x_i,\, y_i,\, z_i,\, t_i\right] where the subscript i has the value 1, 2, 3, or 4. Knowing the indicated time the message was received \scriptstyle\ {t}_{r}, the GPS receiver computes the transit time of the message as \scriptstyle\left ( {t}_r-t_i\right ) . A
pseudorange, \scriptstyle p_i \triangleq \left ( {t}_r-t_i\right )c, is computed as an approximation of the distance from satellite to GPS receiver."
The sat creates a pseudosphere and the receiver creates a pseudosphere. Where they overlap we have a circle. Similar to triangulation and called trilateration.
The pseudoranges are sensitive to error, hence we need accurate clocks (to within +or- 10 nanoseconds). I still don't see where GR comes in.
We need to go to another WIKI link to see about error correction.The article tells us, "the navigation equations can be solved by algebraic or numerical methods." The Bancroft Method.
And the receiver:
"The receiver can use trilateration [87][88] and one dimensional numerical root finding.[89] Satellite position and pseudorange determines a sphere centered on the satellite with radius equal to the pseudorange. Trilateration is used to estimate receiver position based on the intersection of three sphere surfaces so determined."
Or: "Alternatively, multidimensional root finding method such as Newton-Raphson method can be used." But only approximations and not as good as Bancroft.
And there are other methods when using 4 or more satellites, but I still don't see where GR comes in. There are electronic errors and atmospheric errors caused by ionospheric delay, multipath errors caused by signals bouncing off of stuff, ephemeris and atomic clock errors (noise and clock drift). All these errors are corrected for with algorhythms.
Here is where we get into the relativity stuff:
"Three relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. For example, the relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to receivers on Earth. "
Time dilation is about 7microsecs per day Gravitational frequency drift is about 45.9 microsecs per day
These 2 effect vary over time due to the elliptical orbits of the sats and that is called ecentricity.
"To compensate for the discrepancy, the frequency standard on board each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz.
[13] Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a real-world environment.[14] Placing atomic clocks on artificial satellites to test Einstein's general theory was proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg in 1955.[15]"
So really what we are being told here it seems is that the problems assumed to be predicted by GR are solved by real world math and good ole fashioned Yankee Engineering.
$5000 USD to an Apologist of Relativity who can answer such a simple question:
According to the General Theory of Relativity...would a motionless ball fall towards the Earth or would it remain motionless, and why?
If you claim it falls, does it accelerate towards the Earth or does it fall in constant speed, and why?
Feel free to copy/paste the verses in your Bible of Relativity which helps you answer such a simple question.
monkeyminds,
Let's not confuse our dear friend, anonymous, with gps and irrelevancies like that. He can't even tell us whether time is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT, but yet claims that 'it' can dilate like a vagina during birth.
Let's keep it simple for our dear friend.....let's just deal with Einstein's famous GR about the reality of gravity.
I'm sure he wants the $5000 USD....what fool wouldn't?
Notice that the WIKI article says that space has 3 dimensions (I think they meant the earth. And all the formulas are solved based upon these 3 dimensions.
Relativists: Welcome to the real world of three dimensions.
Object + 2 or more locations
I suppose I lied. Although, I am not going to respond to fatfist again. Thank you, monkeyminds, for a response which actually took into account something I said rather than utilized fallacy and inflamatory remarks to no effect. If fatfist would like to make a post more like yours, I would be happy to respond to him.
What I've been trying to say here is simple. I do work which requires me to take into account the real-world problems predicted by relativity theory. So do many other people. You state,
"So really what we are being told here it seems is that the problems assumed to be predicted by GR are solved by real world math and good ole fashioned Yankee Engineering."
I would ammend this to say, not that there are problems ASSUMED to be predicted by GR, but that there ARE problems predicted by GR which REALLY EXIST in our universe. Any satelite which I design with a clock in it (many contain clocks as this is a necessary feature of their proper function), MUST be adjusted for time dilation. If it is not, its timestaps are all wrong and the satelite becomes useless. THIS IS NOT IMAGINED OR SOMETHING WHICH I AM REPORTING TO YOU SECOND HAND, I DO THIS FOR A LIVING. THe real-world math I use to correct for these problems are the equations of relativity. They are not simple to apply or easy to learn, but they are real math with real applications.
You quoted, "Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a real-world environment."
This is the exact point I've been making. Do you have an alternative theory and mathematics which would make my job possible, or shall I continue to use the GR I learned in college? Does the fact that GR works in the real world, and provides us with instantaneous communication across vast distances, mean nothing? GR is a theory which predicts real world problems, provides answers which work, and finally which allows us to do many very impressive things with satelite communications. This is physics, engineering, and real science at work. (P.S. Yankee engineering? The US is not the only nation with satelites and real-world mathematicians, lol.)
""So really what we are being told here it seems is that the problems assumed to be predicted by GR are solved by real world math and good ole fashioned Yankee Engineering."
I would ammend this to say, not that there are problems ASSUMED to be predicted by GR, but that there ARE problems predicted by GR which REALLY EXIST in our universe."
Yes, there are problems that really exist and that GR attempts to predict."
It is the real-world, i.e. 3D objects based math that solves those problems. There is no 4th dimension as predicted by GR. Time is a construct of man with memory relating to:
Object + 2 or more locations
But I'm not going to talk to you if you are not going to talk to Fatfist. It's his hub! Have some respect for the HUB if not the man.
Anonymous,
“I am not going to respond to fatfist again.... If fatfist would like to make a post more like yours, I would be happy to respond to him.”
This is getting old, my friend. Why are you refusing to answer any Q’s about Relativity? If Relativity applies to reality, then you should not be acting like a child,....you should be telling us if a ball will fall to the Earth or not.
“for time dilation”
First things first.....to dilate means to stretch. What is time? Please define it. Is time an object or a concept? Only objects, like rocks, trees, steel beams, stars, planets, etc. can dilate or stretch. Only something with shape and a boundary can dilate.
Is ‘time’ an object? If not, then just WHAT is dilating?
Physics is first and foremost the study of objects! Without objects you can't even begin to do Physics. Without an object, what is it that we are studying, ...nothing?....a spirit?....a soul?....a ghost?
More precisely, Physics is the discipline that studies existence - Physics IS the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Physics does NOT study concepts, specifically, the irrational 'motion of concepts' (i.e., reification). It is Philosophy which studies concepts... and Religion which deals with the motion of concepts.
Also, before you dilate time, please illustrate this beast (object) with a picture anywhere on the net. All objects have shape. The audience would like to see this exhibit you call TIME, before you begin to dilate it.....and after it is dilated. Do not tell me anything about GPS or observations....unless of course YOU have observed this object you call TIME....in which case you should be able to illustrate it BEFORE and AFTER dilation. Otherwise, you have observed nothing!
Anonymous, this is the last time I will ask you to answer the pertinent Q’s regarding Relativity. If you refuse to do so, you will be deemed a troll and any further irrelevant posts from you will go to the bit bucket....understand?
For convenience and fairness to you, please ignore the Q’s I asked you about gravity, and please just answer the Q’s above about time. Now please.....be so kind as to Scientifically answer the Q’s in an honest and intellectual manner.
That's fine. You made your point. I liked your post and appreciate your responding to me rather than some imagined version of me.
"Yes, there are problems that really exist and that GR attempts to predict."
It is the real-world, i.e. 3D objects based math that solves those problems. There is no 4th dimension as predicted by GR. Time is a construct of man with memory relating to:
Object + 2 or more locations"
A physical calculus devoid of the principles of SR and GR is basically Newtonian mechanics. I do use Newtonian mechanics to model orbits and decide things like how to launch and where to place my satellites in orbit. However, I also use the equations of relativity to solve real world problems. I do not use a calculus devoid of the principles of SR and GR. Time dilation is not predicted by such a calculus, and thus can not come to grips with all the problems I encounter while I work.
Relativity predicts time dilation, and time dilation has been proven to be a real phenomenon. You can argue about the cause of this all you like, but relativity honestly does not have much to say about causes. You have to look at conservation principles (particulatly conservation of information) for talk about causes.
To put it as simply as possible: one thing relativity predicts is that the passage of time will slow or speed up depending on your location in the universe... depending on your location in SPACE. So, your location in SPACE has a fundamental impact on TIME. Again, this is real. I know it's real, first hand.
I was not being childish, fatfist. I was asking you to refrain from personal attacks while you converse with me. You did a much better job of this in your last post, and so you can expect a response from me. However, I must go back to work and so will respond to you when I get off tonight. Cheers.
"A physical calculus devoid of the principles of SR and GR is basically Newtonian mechanics. I do use Newtonian mechanics to model orbits and decide things like how to launch and where to place my satellites in orbit. However, I also use the equations of relativity to solve real world problems. I do not use a calculus devoid of the principles of SR and GR. Time dilation is not predicted by such a calculus, and thus can not come to grips with all the problems I encounter while I work."
So once Newton gets the sat in space, how do you apply your calculus to time dilation?
"To put it as simply as possible: one thing relativity predicts is that the passage of time will slow or speed up depending on your location in the universe... depending on your location in SPACE. So, your location in SPACE has a fundamental impact on TIME. Again, this is real. I know it's real, first hand."
I'll wait for your response about time to Fatfist, but I gotta say...just because you say that you know it's real, first hand is a very weak argument. First you'll have to define what you mean by real and secondly, knowledge has nothing to do with scientific hypothesis or theory.
It's all well and good that you are an authority on sats and GPS, but here we aren't really impressed with authority from a purely scientific perspective. Congrats on your ability to make my GPS work when I can't find a map! I really do appreciate it and I am truly grateful for your work and all that technology has accomplished.
monkeyminds,
Let's not hit anonymous with lots of questions. The discussion can go off in irrelevant tangents. We need to start from the basics of Physics....and that is with objects. Verbs, like "dilate" can only be applied to objects. Concepts cannot dilate.
So anonymous will need to tell us exactly what "time" is so the audience can see whether it can indeed be dilated. We don't need to get into the irrelevancies of GPS. Hopefully, there was "time" before there was Relativity and GPS. So let's get back to basics and critically analyze what "time" is. Only then can we say that time dilation is how GPS works. Otherwise, this phenomenon of clock hands speeding up or slowing down, has another explanation.
For example, if I place a magnet on a clock, I have slowed down the hands of the clock. Now this clock is out of sync with a reference clock. Have I DILATED time?? Of course not! What I have done is physically slowed down the hands of the clock with magnetic interaction. So just because a clock slows down or speeds up, does not mean that TIME has slowed down or sped up. Only objects can slow or speed up. If time is indeed an object....then FOR SURE it is capable of slowing down and speeding up.
So was it the CLOCK that slowed down or sped up....or was it TIME?
MM:So once Newton gets the sat in space, how do you apply your calculus to time dilation?
FF:We don't need to get into the irrelevancies of GPS.
FF:So was it the CLOCK that slowed down or sped up....or was it TIME?
MM:Yes, agreed. Your question is more direct.
"Relativity predicts time dilation, and time dilation has been proven to be a real phenomenon."
Haha, hilarious! He has no idea what it is, it's nothing to do with physics, and it's also completely irrational to dilate a concept, but don't worry – it's been PROVEN! So shut your mouth and accept our faith!
monkey,
"It's all well and good that you are an authority on sats and GPS, but here we aren't really impressed with authority from a purely scientific perspective. Congrats on your ability to make my GPS work when I can't find a map! I really do appreciate it and I am truly grateful for your work and all that technology has accomplished."
#1: You have no idea what sort of impact my work has had on technology at large. It suffices to say that you should simply keep your mouth shut on this topic. Those who know me would laugh in your face over this comment.
#2: Belittling me or my work accomplishes nothing in the advancement of your arguments against relativity; it's just an attack against ME. It makes you seem small-minded and petty, and it has no place in a genuine debate. Please refrain from this in the future. As I told fatfist, and now am sadly finding it necessary to tell you, personal attacks are nothing more than a good way of driving me off. This does not make you some sort of 'winner'. It's not a good way of demonstrating any sort of knowledge or truth. It's more politics/religion than science.
#3: I had two valid reasons for telling you that my experience with satellites and general relativity are first-hand. The first reason is that fatfist seems to think that everyone who believes in relativity theory does so because they simply are trusting in someonew who taught it to them. This is not the case. Many people all over the world require the mathematics provided by relativity theory in order to do their jobs or to advance science. I am one of those people who did not simply learn relativity theory, but has applied it in the real world to great success. Second, the lattermost reason I brought up my first-hand experience was a polite and not very blunt way of saying this: you are dead wrong about the mathematics I use at MYYYYY job. I should know, I'm the one doing the mathematics. If you would like a more thorough discussion of this, I'd be happy to provide one. However, as you both have expressed a wish for me to answer some of fatfist's challenges instead, I'll acquiesce and proceed to do so now.
MM:"It's all well and good that you are an authority on sats and GPS, but here we aren't really impressed with authority from a purely scientific perspective. Congrats on your ability to make my GPS work when I can't find a map! I really do appreciate it and I am truly grateful for your work and all that technology has accomplished."
ANNON:#1: You have no idea what sort of impact my work has had on technology at large. It suffices to say that you should simply keep your mouth shut on this topic. Those who know me would laugh in your face over this comment.
WOW! Geesh! Don't even understand a compliment when you get one. I was being serious when I said I was grateful. Authority still means nothing to me from a purely scientific POV.
But OK, proceed to explain time and how it can dilate.
fat,
You've said a great many things at this point. I will answer some of your questions. However, I also want to point out something very important to you, i.e. why what you're doing is not science but philosophy.
Earlier, you said something to the effect that I should take a course in the scientific method and would there find out that observation has little or nothing to do with said method. Let me quickly pull up the first thing I find online concerning the scientific method.
"Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results "
source: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_sc
Everything you have done here constitutes steps 1-3 of this version of the scientific method. You have not done what I would call the OBSERVATIONAL part of science, what I would consider its most important part. It is the observation of the real world, of experiments done in that world, which sets science apart from philosophy. You have conducted no experiments, have not processed any real-world data concerning these experiments, and have not reported the findings of your experiments.
Let me tell you, the ONLY reason Einstein is considered a scientist and not a philosopher is beccause his work generated real-world predictions which have turned out to be real-world phenomena. And you know what? Turns out he was right about most of what he said. Later in his life, he authored some rubbish which he later retracted, but this was stuff he wrote in violation of the principle of relativity (interesting given the way you rail against Einstein... you should ask yourself, how much do you really know about the man and his work?).
Having said that, I will proceed to your concept-object distinction, the class of things studied by physics, and some of the direct questions you've asked me.
fatfist, you and I disagree on something very fundamental. This is the class of things studied by physics. You have claimed that the ONLY thing physics studies is the set of things called objects, or else you've claimed that the only thing it SHOULD BE studying is said set. However, physics does and should study much more than just objects.
A couple things physicists study which are not objects are light and sound. If physicists did not study light, we would not have the radio, tv, internet, cell phones, etc. These results of the study of light, I think, satisfy the 'should' part of whether or not physics should study only objects, while the simple fact that light is a high-priority topic of physics satisfies the question as to whether physics studies things other than objects.
Physics is more properly understood as the study of nature. But more on this later...
Now to your object-concept distinction. I believe this to be a false dichotomy. You continually put forward that something can only be concept or object. By this 'or' you mean that something must be one or the other and can not be both. You are using, in other words, an exclusive disjunct here. It seems to me that you have not considered the possibility that something can be BOTH concept and object, and that science has shown ALL objects are at least as much concepts developed during childhood as they are something concept-independent.
I appeal here to child psychology. It is a well-known fact that up to a certain point in development, children actually lack something called the concept of object permanence. Very young children get such a kick out of peek-a-boo and hide and seek because, when they are not looking at them, objects are as good as nonexistent to these children. This means that very young children actually develop the CONCEPT OF OBJECT permanence. Further, we were all children once. We all developed the concept of object permanence. This was not something innate or given to us somehow by the universe. I reiterate, objects are as much a conceptual construction of the senses as they are something concept-independent.
Thanks for sticking with me so far, we're getting back to relativity now. :) Space, time, light, objects, all of it is concept-laiden. We need to have a concept of something in our minds in order to understand it out there. Here are the fundamental tenants of relativity theory:
SR:
1) The speed of light is a fixed constant known as c
2) Inertial reference frames are equivalent. In practical terms, this means that there is no way to determine an 'absolute velocity' independent of all observers. You can also take this to mean that the laws of physics should not change depending upon where an observer is or how fast they're moving.
GR:
g=a, or there is no distinguishing feature between the effect of gravity and simple acceleration, i.e., gravity just is a change in the velocity of an object, light, sound, etc. This is where the whole curved spacetime thing comes from, because a curved spacetime accounts for a change in velocity.
These are the things which you'd actually have to disprove (WITH EXPERIMENTATION/OBSERVATION) if you want to be considered a scientist. Nothing you've done here has provided any experimental evidence whatsoever that these fundamental tenants of relativity are not true.
When you realize that even objects are concepts, it becomes a little less difficult to understand how a concept can be 'bent' or 'warped'. Spacetime is as much a concept as something which exists concept-independently.
It is interesting to note that the geometry which best fits relativity theory existed before relativity theory. It was first conceived of by a man named Reimann. This shows that the spacetime Einstein talked about was very much a concept and you are right in treating it as such. The difference between the Euchlidian geometry you learned in highschool and the Reimannian geometry championed by general relativity theory is PRECISELY that space is 'curved'. This 'curved' is just a word which inadequately describes something about the mathematics which can only really be learned by actually doing the math, but it makes sense to call it 'curved' once you've done the math and to use analogies like doing geometry on a balloon rather than a flat plane in its description. Odd things are true in this Reimannian geometry such as the famous fact that the interior angles of a triangle do not total 180 degrees. All of this is very unintuative given that we are most intimately familiar with something that LOOKS VERY MUCH like Euchlidean geometry.
We do not live in a Euchlidean universe, however. Our universe is at least Reimannian if not much more, and this fact was neither accepted at large by the scientific community nor should it have been prior to the acquisition of OBSERVABLE TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. We have seen evidence for relativity theory, for the idea that spacetime is Reimannian, in the way light is bent around the moon during an eclipse, the way galaxies bend light from further galaxies around themselves, the way time changes its rate depending on our location and speed within this universe, in the harnessing of nuclear fission, in the way nuclear fusion is the only viable explanation we have for the amount of energy put out by the sun, and in so many other ways which I shall not list. It is OBSERVATIONS LIKE THESE which are important in determining whether your concepts are in sync with the world beyond you. These things are not 'irrelevant', they are extremely important to science. It is examples like these which, once again, are what REALLY sets science apart from philosophy, politics, relgion, etc. I do not believe in relativity theory because someone told me to, I believe in it because it fits the data.
Physics as a whole is not the study of specific bodies within the universe, of objects, or light, or sound, or whatever have you. Physics as a whole is the study of NATURE, of LAWS which govern ALL OF THOSE THINGS. We arrive at these laws by observing everyday and cosmic things, by observing bodies, light, sound, galaxies, etc... We then test our laws on other bodies in order t
(Sorry for length)
We arrive at these laws by observing everyday and cosmic things, by observing bodies, light, sound, galaxies, etc... We then test our laws on other bodies in order to make certain they retain their universal application. If they do not, we modify them so that they do. They are therefore as much our creation as that of the universe, and again, are both concept and concept-independent. That there are laws at all comes from us, but WHAT THOSE LAWS ARE comes from the universe itself.
With that, I can try to answer your two questions.
1) Is space curved like a hammock? If so, is it concept or object?
Yes, space is curved. No, not quite like a hammock or any analogy using English or appealing to our everday 3d experiences. If I was forced to pick an analogy, it would be a funnel or well. Space is both concept and object, as is everything we experience.
2) Assume ball and earth are all that exist, what happens?
This depends on the LAWS in your constructed universe, not the objects within it. Are the laws in your universe a replica of our own? I will assume that they are the same and continue. The ball and earth would be attracted to one another, neither would 'fall' unto the other. Falling implies a frame of reference on the earth. What about the frame of reference from the ball? (hint: see the principle of RELATIVITY, namely #2 in my analysis of SR above). They would be attracted via the proportions of mass and distance assuming no forces other than gravity interfered with this.
After all that, I still didn't see an explanation for time and how it can dilate.
I'd say something about your concept/object duality, Reimannian stupidity and your 17th century copy/paste of the Scientific Method, but we'd get off on another rabbit trail. PLEASE define time and explain how it can dilate.
anon does not seem to grasp that when he copies and pastes from the internet the internet for him has become an authority. He needs to reason for himself instead of allowing authorities to tell him what he believes.
AKAWinston"Anon does not seem to grasp that when he copies and pastes from the internet the internet for him has become an authority."
Worse, he said he pulled up the first thing he found on line. So apparently any authority will do. No wonder he took offense when I said we aren't really impressed with authority.
monkey,
My apologies for not responding directly to your question, but I made it clear that the long post was meant for fat. He has written an immense amount of stuff directed toward me, and that post was meant to respond to a great deal of that. Again, sorry if you felt neglected.
1) I actually explicitly stated that I was going to go with the first thing I found on the scientific method online. Wasn't hiding anything from anyone. My basic point had little to do with the copy-paste, though, and that is quite simply that any derivation of the scientific method WITHOUT something synonymous with observation/experiment is an incorrect and nonscientific derivation.
2) The object concept thing seems important, even to your arguments concerning time, I'll show you why in a moment.
3) Reimann was smarter than either of us, and I'd wager he was smarter than anyone posting here. Furthermore, his math has practical applications which I, and many others, use to make your toys work.
All right, you won't like what I have to say about time and time dilation, but I will say it anyway.
You have a definition of time which states its pure concept. If it is pure concept, you claim time can't be dilated because concepts can't be dilated. Well, here's the thing: your argument is CONDITIONAL upon the premise that time is purely conceptual. For one, I still hold that time can be both concept and something beyond concept. But more importantly, in order to prove that time is pure concept you have to show, not that physics has no clear definition for time, but that time has absolutely no impact with respect to physical laws! You can not do that sitting here arguing, you must do that by peering into the most distant reaches of the universe and observing very old light.
Defining time is a live field of physics. There are experiments being considered to see if time is in fact something inherent to the structure of the universe or something less substantial. For example, a famous physicist has proposed examining high energy radiation from distant galaxies in order to test for changes in the laws of physics over time. If certain particles arrive before others, this will be evidence that the speed of light was once variable depending on the nature of the particles traveling at said speed. This would simultaneously force us to consider time an integral part of the universe AND to tweak relativity theory in a way that accounts for the change in lightspeed through time.
Even if the speed of light is shown to be variable through time, relativity theory would not be altogether abandoned for the very reasons I have repeated over and over. Relativity theory predicts soooo much observable data that we would save, at the very least, its mathematics in the form of limiting values. This means that in the same way Newton's equations pop out of Einstein's when dealing with everday speeds and masses, so Einstein's would pop out of some larger set of mathematics in the future.
One of these observable things we would still have to account for is that the passage of time does, in actual fact, slow down or speed up depending upon the position you occupy in the universe. We have measured this over and over again. The best explanation for this is relativity theory, unless you have one other than fatfist's silly electromagnetic idea? I dismiss the analogy out of hand because the clocks I use on satelites have no 'hands', amongst other reasons.
Finally, I have to say once again that relativity theory is not as concerned with causes as all of you seem to think. If you want a serious discussion of time, you need to start looking at thermodynamics. In thermodynamics, I've heard claims like 'time has a direction because the flow of entropy has only one direction.' Relativity theory is descriptive, but not something which presumes to provide an ultimate picture of spacetime. Relativity theory is useful, fits data, and is actually quite simple in stating its initial assumptions. These are, once again:
1: c=c=c, lightspeed is measured at a constant c regardless as to one's reference frame
2: The laws of physics should look the same regardless as to one's reference frame
3: g=a
THESE are the principles you have to disprove in order to show that relativity theory is somehow mistaken. Good luck to you in doing so.
Summary: If you're pissed about relativity theory not defining time, then you're pissed at all of physics and not relativity.
Also, if I may, I'd like to ask a question...
What sort of time dilation makes you upset? High speed or proximity to mass? Or both? If one, the other, or both, please explain why this is so. Although they both can be understood under GR, it is actually quite a bit easier to talk with nonphysicists about time dilation in SR.
I just got back from a bike ride on my electric trike. It is a great sun-shiney day where I live!
"My apologies for not responding directly to your question, but I made it clear that the long post was meant for fat. He has written an immense amount of stuff directed toward me, and that post was meant to respond to a great deal of that. Again, sorry if you felt neglected."
It's OK, take your Time and say whatever you need to.
"1)[snip]any derivation of the scientific method WITHOUT something synonymous with observation/experiment is an incorrect and nonscientific derivation."
We (u&I) just have different ideas about what constitutes the SM, although I have argued pretty strongly for the current SM (the one you described).
"3) Reimann was smarter than either of us, and I'd wager he was smarter than anyone posting here. Furthermore, his math has practical applications which I, and many others, use to make your toys work."
Smart people can be very wrong at times, but I'll leave Reimann and his triangles for a different discussion.
"All right, you won't like what I have to say about time and time dilation, but I will say it anyway."
Weather or not I like it has no bearing on its validity.
"[snip] your argument is CONDITIONAL upon the premise that time is purely conceptual."
Agreed, but weather or not I agree has no bearing on its validity.
"Defining time is a live field of physics. There are experiments being considered to see if time is in fact something inherent to the structure of the universe [snip]"
The question of time can be solved here and now rationally.
"One of these observable things we would still have to account for is that the passage of time does, in actual fact, slow down or speed up depending upon the position you occupy in the universe. We have measured this over and over again."
Time can not pass, slow down, speed up or be measured.
"THESE are the principles you have to disprove in order to show that relativity theory is somehow mistaken. Good luck to you in doing so."
Sorry, but proof has nothing to do with the SM. Theory does not prove, it explains. However, because relativity has loosely defined terms, brought common conversational language into science and uses those terms ambiguously, ToR is not falsifiable. Which means it is not science!
"Summary: If you're pissed about relativity theory not defining time, then you're pissed at all of physics and not relativity."
Being pissed at relativity does not invalidate it, nor does loving it validate Relativity.
"Also, if I may, I'd like to ask a question...
What sort of time dilation makes you upset? High speed or proximity to mass? Or both? If one, the other, or both, please explain why this is so. Although they both can be understood under GR, it is actually quite a bit easier to talk with nonphysicists about time dilation in SR."
Neither make me upset, time has nothing to do with dilation, speed or mass. I am sure that it is easier to talk to nonphysicists, since their are varying opinions. However, opinions have nothing to do with physics in general, or time in particular, and the average Joe doesn't understand this.
Now, I intentionally did not answer your questions in any detail (although I could have). ToR covers a lot of ground and we have got to define our KEY TERMS first. At least, you know what I think. Why I think these things which are so contrary to what you have been taught and believe can come later.
FF will press you on defining your KEY TERMS, so you will need to prepare for that. Gather your thots and good luck! It's not easy having your core beliefs challenged. If you hang in there, it will be worth it, and you will see "the Universe" thru new eyes!
Annon:
"Finally, I have to say once again that relativity theory is not as concerned with causes as all of you seem to think. If you want a serious discussion of time, you need to start looking at thermodynamics. In thermodynamics, I've heard claims like 'time has a direction because the flow of entropy has only one direction.'"
If you want to discuss the arrow of time and
(S = K log W) why not go to Fatfist's Hub on thermodynamics?
Meanwhile, when you have the time, can you please define the word time? And afterwards, define energy, mass, light and speed. The Key terms of E=MC^2.
I really would like to see addressed a lot of what you have talked about in your recent posts, but we have simply got to get to the most important thing FIRST concept/object. The way to get there is by defining terms.
*** ANONYMOUS ARGUMENT OF OBSERVATIONS ***
Anonymous,
“observation has little or nothing to do with said method.”
Exactly, it doesn’t! And you “proved” this point with a single example of Ptolemy, who OBSERVED and PROVED that the Earth is the center of the universe, and all objects revolve around it. The Ptolemaic Earth-centric model was observationally wayyyy more accurate than the Copernican model. Hence, pursuant to YOUR reasoning from YOUR argument from observation, we conclude via PROOF (i.e. sensory observation) that the Earth is the center of the universe.
False!
Therefore YOUR argument from observations is contradictory. Furthermore, we can CRITICALLY REASON this because observations are SUBJECTIVE. Do you know what subjective means??? It means subject to an INDIVIDUAL using their sensory system i.e. opinion! Subjectivity and opinions (i.e. personal observations) and have absolutely nothing to do with Science. Science is OBJECTIVE....observer-independent. Observations are NOT part of the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory). You cannot rationally argue otherwise.
Q: Why is it the case that nobody can rationally argue otherwise??
A: Because a Hypothesis is an ASSUMPTION. Assumptions are NOT observations. Assumptions are critically reasoned without contradiction! A scientist hypothesizes what the mediators (i.e. objects) are which will be the ACTORS performing ACTIONS (i.e. consummated events or natural phenomena, like gravity, light, magnetism) in the Theory. The THEORY is a critically reasoned rational explanation (without contradiction) of the consummated event using the ACTORS (objects) in the Hypothesis. This is OBJECTIVE, non-contradictory and observer-independent...ergo, NO observers or their ludicrous opinions!
Hence YOUR argument from “observations” is self-refuting (contradictory)....furthermore; it commits at least the following fallacies: Appeal to Authority, Begging the Question, Appeal to Common Practice, Special Pleading.
OBSERVATION = PROOF = SUBJECTIVITY = OPINION....all the same.
Jesus was observed to walk on water, raise the dead, talk to God, heal the blind, feed thousands with a few fish, etc, etc.....but you outright dismiss these PROVEN observations. And this is another nail to the coffin of YOUR argument of special pleading for subjective observations. And as a corollary...you have no observations which can prove that Jesus did not do these things. See how contradictory an argument from observations is? We’re done!
As you can now understand.....There is no provision for opinions, witnesses, testimony, or observers in a Hypothesis or Theory (sci method).
Before repeating your debunked argument from observations, PLEASE re-read the critically reasoned argument above and try to understand it. There is nothing difficult about it.....Science is always objective....never subjective!
Observations are BY DEFINITION, the subjective opinionated actions of individual(s).
Unless you can offer a NEW argument to debunk my argument above (that Science is OBJECTIVE), then the issue of “observations” is settled. But even so....how can you possibly debunk it? Will you attempt to argue that Science is SUBJECTIVE???
Obviously not. Such attempts are an exercise in futility.
So please respect our intellectual conversation and don’t repeat the same debunked argument, as repetition does not outvote rationality, ok? Thanks.
*** ANONYMOUS ARGUMENT OBJECT = CONCEPT ***
Anonymous,
“fatfist, you and I disagree on something very fundamental. This is the class of things studied by physics.”
It is irrelevant who agrees or who disagrees. We don’t ask God, Einstein, Hawking, Elvis Presley, Lady Gaga, Madonna, George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, me, you or anybody else about what their OPINION or AGREEMENT on issues regarding reality. Reality couldn’t care less about human opinions. Authority, rank or who has the biggest army plays no role here.
Reality (i.e. what is real) is NOT something we “agree” on.....or go to the ballot box to vote on. Reality is not politics. Reality just is. And reality already was before God placed Adam and Eve with their opinions on this planet.
Physics is the study of reality....that study of what is REAL.....and NOT the study of what is fake, artificial, metaphorical, figurative, spiritual, opinionated, decreed, or voted on by an authority, like they do in Religion. Reality is literally the “real deal”. Hence Physics is LITERAL and doesn’t use metaphors or figures of speech.
Reality is a synonym for existence. What exists is real, and what is real, exists. Reality (existence) circumscribes only OBJECTIVE presence, and NOT spiritual, meta-physical, supernatural or magical presence.
‘Real’ is an adjective which refers to that which has objective presence – independent of the opinion of any human or sentient observer. The Moon was real (i.e. existed, had objective presence) before life forms evolved on Earth to give their opinions on the issue.
Since Physics is the study of what is REAL, the subject matter of Physics must, absolutely must be a NOUN of REALITY. A “real noun” is what is PHYSICALLY PRESENT. Whether the human sensory system can sense it or SEE it is irrelevant.
“the ONLY thing physics studies is the set of things called objects”
Exactly!
Physics comes from the word PHYSICAL. Only objects can be said to be physical. Physics studies ‘that’ which is REAL....’that’ which has OBJECTIVE presence....ie. object!
Q: What does ‘that’ refer to?
A: Any noun of reality.
Only an OBJECT can possibly have objective presence. An object with presence stands on its own....and is independent of any observer....just like the Moon was before beings evolved here.
Since Physics is the study of REALITY, it is the study of real objects (i.e. real nouns). Physics is the study of OBJECTS which exist! Physics is NOT the study of alleged entities (objects) which cannot possibly exist. All the objects specified in a Scientific Hypothesis must be amenable to illustration because it is YOU (the Scientist) who hypothesized them and refer to them as NOUNS of reality and perform VERBS (i.e. motion) on them, like dilate, contract, warp, etc. Only objects/entities/things can have motion imparted on them....i.e. be amenable to verbs!
It is irrelevant if we cannot directly see or run tests on these hypothesized objects. But you MUST illustrate to the audience what YOU are talking about,....what you have imagined to be a mediator of phenomena.....i.e. the NOUN of the subject matter in your presentation.... otherwise you are not doing Science, but Religion.
Objects which exist have physical presence....as opposed to supernatural presence, etc. So existence (reality) deals exclusively with objects which have presence. Such objects are said to exist because of their locality; they have ‘presence’ in the Universe and can indeed be located. This means that they have ‘location’.
The subject matter of Physics is without exception, an OBJECT which has LOCATION (i.e. physical presence). The subject matter of Philosophy is not objects, but rather concepts (love, justice, virtue, morals, opinions, etc). We don't talk about love and justice in Physics. The nouns of Physics are strictly objects.
In Physics, we need to distinguish between objects and concepts. Physics ONLY deals with objects. We cannot do Physics without objects. Certainly, even conceding the irrational arguments of some, that observation is a part of Science, we cannot do observations (or stimulate the sensory system) without objects. We’re done!!
Existence is an adjective since it describes an object. It describes ‘that’ which is objectified by its presence i.e. is physically real.
Object: that which has shape (Synonyms: exhibit, thing, physical, something, entity, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)
Exist: An object having location (exist = object + location).
Location: the set of static distances to all other objects.
Concept: a relation between two or more objects (i.e. that which lacks shape).
Reality is comprised of only real nouns i.e. OBJECTS. There is nothing else out there which can be remotely argued to be a NOUN of reality. Absolutely all objects (i.e. stars, planets, all the ‘stuff’ out there) have shape/form. There is not a single object which can be argued to not have shape/form. Space lacks shape. Space is the static distance between objects. Space is our conception of the void (i.e. nothing).
The Moon is and was an object before beings evolved here. The Moon had shape all on its own without any observers!! The Moon had static distances to all the other objects in the universe, and hence, existed without any observers or their opinions on the issue.
There are no spirits, souls or 0D entities (i.e. concepts) which exist out there. Absolutely ALL concepts are necessarily predicated, first and foremost, on OBJECTS! You cannot conceive of a concept without at least invoking 2 existing objects.
Every single word in ANY language....whether English, Chinese or Alien, fits in either of the 2 categories: OBJECT or CONCEPT. There is NO other category or option! Those who disagree, will merely have to show what other option there is besides object (something i.e. having shape) and concept (nothing i.e. lacking shape). Is there a middle ground between shape and no shape? Absolutely not! And we don’t need a ludicrous observation for this. This is strictly a conceptual issue of CRITICAL THINKING and REASONING without any asserted contradictions.
“Now to your object-concept distinction. I believe this to be a false dichotomy.”
Believe? You believe?
What does belief have to do with Science? In Science we don’t believe. In Science, we explain....and we do so rationally (consistently, unambiguously and without contradiction). All systems of BELIEF are contradictory....including the one which you just stated about the “false dichotomy” of object-concept. Please re-read the above rational argument I gave you about object vs concept and please do not repeat this debunked argument of “false-dichotomy”, ok? Thank you. If you have a NEW argument which debunks my argument, I am willing to hear it. But please, be intellectually honest with the members of the audience.
“something can be BOTH concept and object”
Impossible. Already debunked via contradiction. There is NO other option/category between shape (object i.e. something) and no shape (concept i.e. nothing)....ever!
“science has shown ALL objects are at least as much concepts”
Nonsensical assertion without a supporting argument. Nobody has “SHOWN” any such as you claim. If you can “SHOW” it, then please do so by posting a url-link online so you can directly SHOW it to the members of the audience who wish to SEE it. Just what is ‘it’ that you intend to show? A half-way between shape (something) and no-shape (nothing)?? Such a claimed scenario is impossible and already debunked, as I explained above. All nouns of reality are without exception, exclusively objects. Objects and concepts are ONTOLOGICAL OPPOSITES in reality.
cont....
“children.....”
Anybody who attempts to tell a child that his ball is BOTH a ‘something’ AND a ‘nothing’....will be shocked when he spits in their eye and ridicules them in front of everyone. Children already know that a ball (object) is real and exists, and “bouncing” (concept) doesn’t. Even a baby will throw up on you when you tell him such nonsense as ball = bouncing. Even a baby realizes that this is an ontological contradiction...just like a ball cannot be both on and off a table at the same time. Please, I am seriously beginning to doubt that you remotely work anywhere near an engineering environment. Let’s talk Physics and not philosophical contradictions which are the realm of Religion, ok?
*** ANONYMOUS ARGUMENT OF TIME BEING REAL ***
Anonymous,
So as it turns out, you couldn’t answer my questions about TIME and ‘it’s DILATION because time is not an object. Time is NOT a NOUN of reality. Time is not real. Time does NOT exist. Time is an abstract concept (specifically, a verb) conceived by man.
You see, anonymous.... St. Augustine had reified time from a VERB into a NOUN long before mathematical physicists were able to get their grubby hands on it and do it themselves. He said that time is not measured via the motion of a body. Time exists, it was created by God, and bodies move IN time. Without time, there is no motion. Obviously, this guy was an expert on time and nobody could debunk his assertions back then.
“...if any one should say that time is "the motion of a body?" Thou dost not command me. For I hear that no body is moved but in time. This Thou sayest; but that the very motion of a body is time, I hear not; Thou sayest it not. Time, therefore, is not the motion of a body.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 24)
Then, after being pressured by critical thinking Philosophers, Augustine confesses that he has absolutely NO clue what time actually is.
“And I confess unto Thee, O Lord, that I am as yet ignorant as to what time is...” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 25)
Like I said... this guy was an expert on time and he was actually able to debunk his assertions all by himself.....as everyone does who claims that time is an object or that ‘it’ exists.
Hawking writes a Book called "A brief history of TIME" and nowhere will you find the definition of the center of his dissertation. He states that while he has no evidence of time travel, it is theoretically possible; and that it's possible that we have been visited by more technologically advanced people from the future! Whaaaaaaaat?
The same goes for another mathematician, Paul Davies, who wrote a book titled 'About Time'. How can he write 'about time' if he confesses up front that he has no idea what time is?
If time has to do with Physics, then hopefully, it should be defined consistently and unambiguously (i.e. Scientifically) alongside ‘object’ and ‘exist’, don't you agree?
And guess what? Not a single person, from Newton to Einstein to Hawking, has ever defined this enigmatic word.
So the audience naturally asks: JUST WHAT THE F**K IS IT THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DILATE???
If you can’t define the KEY terms of your dissertation, then you are NOT doing Science or Philosophy.....you are doing Religion! It is only in Religion where the Pastor refuses to define any word in his dissertation for fear that all his arguments will be instantly debunked and shown to be a fraud.
So no one has the right to use the word time until he can tell the audience what he is going to talk about. Should we simply assume that we all know what time is, just like we know what spirit and God is? Nudge nudge...wink wink ;-)
Well Physics has absolutely nothing to do with Nudge nudge...wink wink, or with metaphors and poetry. PHYSICS IS 100% LITERAL. We call a spade is a spade....and we always define the KEY terms (i.e. time, object, concept, exist) which make or break our argument. PHYSICS IS ABOUT BEING HONEST WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO CAME TO SEE OUR PRESENTATION.
This is what we read at the wiki about time:
“Time is an essential part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.”
No kidding....time is a concept after all. No different than the concept of a meter or a kilogram, which necessarily requires at least 2 objects to be conceived and defined. Please review the definition of the word CONCEPT. We are living objects in motion, not in time! The concepts within our human mind’s reality have no physical collateral (no ontology), and hence do not coincide to anything within the reality of the Universe.
There is no such thing as time in reality. There is no ‘time’ entity in the Universe. We have no use for this ridiculous word Physics. We only have use for this word in ENGINEERING, where we invent gadgets to use in our daily lives which revolve around the concept of time. Time is like the word God. It conveniently cures all ills. But what is this worth if we sacrificed understanding in exchange?
cont...
Time is a scalar quantity used for quantifying motion (ie. measuring movement). It doesn't slow down, speed up, dilate, contract, bend, warp, shrink, expand, etc. any more than a meter shrinks or expands. Only the object being measured can speed up, slow down, dilate, shrink, or expand.
Time doesn’t exist. Time is a human conception. After all, our entire existence revolves around the concept of “time.” Just try uttering a single sentence without referring to time: “today I’m going to …”; “call me later”; “when I was …”; “how long will it …”; and so on. Time is so innate, ingrained, and intuitive to our thought processes that we don’t even give it a second thought. The human capacity for perceiving time has to do with our sophisticated memory, which certainly IS a prerequisite for perceiving time. After all, a huge chunk of what we perceive as time, the past, is only made possible by memory. Without a good memory the past is inconceivable. A rich collection of memories, however, could actually be a mentally debilitating liability without some means to categorize those memories and make some sense of them. Chronological ordering is certainly a useful way to categorize memories, thus necessitating the concept of time. Animals that don’t possess such rich memories or engage in complex mental analyses may not require the concept of time.
TIME is not some ethereal property or entity.... but rather it is just a defined metric like length and mass. In fact, time is simply the scalar metric of motion. And the limit of motion is also the limit of time. So we build an instrument to do the simple task of demonstrating a standard uniform motion, and we cause this instrument to record its accruing motion in some manner, which we calibrate to mimic the Earth's rotation. Since this instrument accomplishes no other task, but to move uniformly, we call it a CLOCK and say it is measuring time, even though it doesn’t!
Our motion-clock is not measuring Time; rather it is measuring Motion, its own Motion.
That is why it confuses us, we are taught to think that it is measuring something separate from its own internal motion. After all, we use standard lengths to measure and compare all other lengths, and we use standard masses to measure and compare all other masses. Likewise, we use standard motions (Earth and Sun) to measure and compare all other motions. We do not use clocks to measure undefinable concepts. As uniform cyclic motions occur and re-occur, we identify their rhythmic nature and we regulate our own motions (i.e. lives) to them, being insufficiently aware that here on Earth it is only the Earth's rotation and revolution motions which define our days and years.
There are no absolute metrics in our universe. Every measured quantity is relative to a finite standard that is PRE-DEFINED by us, but not measurable; such that by definition, a Standard Metric is simply one (1) unit of Mass or Length or Motion. WE determine how finite something is by comparing it with our defined unit of finite length.
Similarly for motions, we compare motions and changes in motion in a relative sense of change, and not in any absolute sense. There are no absolute scales of measure. In our calculations involving TIME as motion we use the comparable motion of the Earth's rotation camouflaged in clocks, while in our descriptive verbiage about Time we use some confusing ideas that suggest a universal property or....gulp... dimension....which is utter nonsense (Fallacy of Reification).
Time necessarily requires an observer: time = motion + memory
If you didn’t hear that, I will repeat it again...
Time necessarily requires an observer: time = motion + memory
Time necessarily requires an observer: time = motion + memory
Time necessarily requires an observer: time = motion + memory
Time necessarily requires an observer: time = motion + memory
Humans conceived of and invented this abstract concept they call TIME!
Time is a concept that is defined by change, or cause & effect. Time is a verb. No physical object is subject or physically dependent upon the concept of time. Time is a figment of the imagination of a living entity and nothing more. Time is NOT a part of Physics or of Science. It belongs exclusively to the religion of Mathematics.
Father Universe has no memory. He wakes up. He looks out and sees every object at a given location. Then he goes back to sleep and loses his memory. Father U recognizes no such thing as motion or time. As far as he's concerned, all objects merely have location. It is humans, video cameras and recording devices which have memory.
Time absolutely requires an observer. Without memory, there is no such notion as time.
time (Physics): The comparison between two locations of one object. (e.g., before/after, earlier/later, etc).
Time is artificial; a concept necessarily predicated on a sentient observer with memory.
Time is the quantification of the relation or “relative motion” between the motion of two objects A and B. Therefore we can mathematically define time as follows...
Time (Mathematics): numerical or quantitative relation established between two motions, one of which is a pre-established standard (e.g., seconds, months, decades). i.e. the distance-traveled by an object B (a clock’s hands) as object A (Earth) traverses the distance D (orbits Sun). Object A and B are assumed to be moving uniformly (rate of change is assumed absolute) with respect to each other.
That is the mathematical definition of time. The physics definition is simply before/after, cause/effect. Objectively there are simply objects changing location. Reality knows nothing about "time". What we perceive as time is simply because we remember where an object was, i.e. we have memory!!
cont...
Time is NOT an object that can be warped, molded by gravity, dilated, be observed or be tested.
In case you didn’t hear that, I will say it again....
Time is NOT an object that can be warped, molded by gravity, dilated, be observed or be tested.
Time is NOT an object that can be warped, molded by gravity, dilated, be observed or be tested.
Time is NOT an object that can be warped, molded by gravity, dilated, be observed or be tested.
Time is NOT an object that can be warped, molded by gravity, dilated, be observed or be tested.
You can only perform these actions (verbs) to ‘things’ with shape i.e. objects! Verbs cannot be performed on concepts, as concepts are artificial (human established relationships) and not real entities.
It is living entities such as humans which came up with time because of the handicap of memory. The 'intelligent' human REMEMBERS the previous location of the Moon, realizes that it moved -- two or more locations -- and claims that 'time has passed'. Mickey's arms have spun around, so he calls this relation 'time'.
Hence, the issue of whether time is relative or absolute is irrelevant in Science since we don't use the word time to explain any phenomenon of nature. Time is a word that serves the interests of Mathematics because Math is the study of dynamic concepts. It has no bearing on issues concerning Physics (the study of existence). In Math, they stretch and warp and bend seconds because they don’t understand the difference between an object and a concept. In the reality of Science, we stretch bubble gum, warp hammocks, and bend molten iron rods.
NOTE: If there was only the Sun and the Earth in the entire universe, and they had no motion, then humans would not be able to conceive of time as we use it today.
One side of the Earth would always be day and the other always night. So humans would need to devise a different “counting mechanism” in order to segment BEFORE and AFTER events for the purposes of organizing their lives. The “second” they would implement in such a situation would come from a computerized “counter” which counts, say, 3 of our current seconds.......or even 1/1000 of them...completely arbitrary. It would be arbitrary and subject to vote by some authority (i.e. Priest). It has absolutely nothing to do with nature or reality. It would only be a convenient (i.e. OPINIONATED) standard that is conceived, implemented, and “enforced” by humans.
If we are going to use “motion” to quantify time, then we need a minimum of 3 objects - no less. Two objects could be the Earth and the Sun, where one moves relative to the other. The third object would be an observer with MEMORY......like a human who counts, or a computer that keeps a running total of the “ticks” from arbitrarily-defined unit of seconds.
Since the Earth moves wrt the Sun, humans chose the “motion” method to quantify (count) the motion of the Earth. Humans call this activity (VERB).....time! The ancients already understood this “quantifying motion” idea and thus used SUNDIALS to “count” the movement of the Sun across the sky as a shadow cast on the sundial. The Greeks already knew this. Time, according to Aristotle, is just the measure of motion, where by ‘motion’ he means change of any sort, including qualitative change. Aristotle’s view was that time did not exist outside the mind; it was a concept! And this is rational.
NOTE: Without a minimum of 3 objects (2 moving wrt each other), quantifying motion is impossible, and there is no concept of time (as a motion quantifier).
Without humans or sentient beings with “memory”, there is no activity that can be performed to “discern” before & after for events (verbs). Since there would be nobody around to “count” motion, then there would be no deliberate “human” or “computer” activity (verb) that we currently call “time”.
The universe has no built-in clock. Sadly, most people on the planet “believe” otherwise. They think that a magical spirit called “time” allows us the freedom to move. They think that if time stopped, the whole universe would stop (or at least the Earth & Sun and all life).
Q: Where did they get this SILLY idea from?
A: From The Twilight Zone episode “A Kind of Stopwatch” which aired in 1963.
If you use the word 'time' to explain any phenomenon of nature, you are doing Religion. In Science, we don't use the word time to explain any phenomenon. There is no such thing as time except in the Religion of Math Fyzics. So unless you define this enigmatic word of your religion, your entire post is meaningless and not even Philosophical....but instead, Religious!
These clowns (Plato, Augustine, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, etc) were never able to define ‘time’. Hawking is the most startling & disturbing case. This clown writes a book titled 'A brief history of time' and a sequel, but tells everyone up front that he can't define the word time. You certainly will not find it in the glossary.
Yet he says that there is a physical object called 'space-time'. That's the garbage you end up with when you don't define the words that make or break your theory.
The reason the clowns of Math Fyziks ended up with time 'dilation', the bending of time, is that they never defined the word time. Faithers like Newton, Einstein, and Hawking never understood what they were talking about BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OBJECT AND A CONCEPT!
“Relativity theory may not be quite right, or better put, is not a comprehensive description of the universe.”
Exactly, my friend. But it goes beyond that. Relativity is a Religion which does not apply to reality. There is not one....NOT ONE statement made by Relativity that cannot be instantly contradicted, and hence, impossible.
*** ANONYMOUS ARGUMENT OF PHILOSOPHY ***
Anonymous,
“what you're doing is not science but philosophy.”
Not even close, my friend. What YOU are actually doing is not even considered Philosophy. There is not a single branch of Philosophy which states that objects (something) are also concepts (nothing). What you are doing is called Fallacy of Reification. You are reifying a concept (nothing) into an object (something)....specifically, you are reifying a VERB/ADVERB/ADJECTIVE into a NOUN of reality. In case you didn’t hear it, I will repeat it again....
What you are doing is called Fallacy of Reification. You are reifying a concept (nothing) into an object (something)....specifically, you are reifying a VERB/ADVERB/ADJECTIVE into a NOUN of reality.
This is contradictory and impossible. We need no experiments or observers to verify that this is impossible. It is impossible BY DEFINITION and BY ONTOLOGY (i.e. what is real).
So your Philosophy Argument is DEBUNKED. The statements you posted fall in the realm of Religion, ....not even Philosophy, and let’s not even mention Physics.
In Physics, we use baby talk, you know, dada-googoo. We look you in the eye and talk STRAIGHT and without runarounds, metaphors or poetry or BS. We point to a ball and say "ball". Then we explain LITERALLY why the ball fell to the floor along with all the actors who mediated this event: "Because God’s angel grabbed the ball with her hand and pulled it to the floor."
In Science, we don't say "Love moves mountains." We cannot take such statement literally. This statement is a euphemism, a figure of speech, poetry. It belongs strictly to ordinary speech (Philosophy & Religion), not in Scientific Language.
Such usage of language commits the Fallacy of Figure of Speech: the confusion between the metaphorical or figurative use of a word or phrase and the ordinary or LITERAL use of a word or phrase as it applies to REALITY! Only those who make Philosophical & Religious arguments commit this fallacy.
Physics is the study of reality (existence). Physics only studies objects which can exist (i.e. have physical presence).
Philosophy is the study of concepts, whether abstract, static, dynamic or at times, reified concepts.
Religion is the study of supernatural objects, like gods, ghosts, angels, demons, etc....and REIFIED concepts (i.e. Fallacy of Reification), like spirits, souls, love, etc.
“Physics is more properly understood as the study of nature.”
There you go again. Metaphor, euphemism, poetry. You are doing Philosophy/Religion, not Science!
You have just committed the Fallacy of Figure of Speech. This is not Physics. Nature is not an object. You cannot point to an ‘entity’ (i.e. noun of reality) out there and label it as “nature”. Nature is an abstract concept because it embodies processes (relations between objects). Physics is the study of ‘that’ which is REAL i.e. ‘that’ which exists!
Remember, we are having an intellectual conversation using critical and reasoned thought. Please refrain from using poetry and Philosophy/Religion and just use proper nouns of reality when referring to the SUBJECT matter of Physics. Please be intellectually, academically and Scientifically honest. Let’s talk about Physics. Thank you.
To summarize: it is Religion and Philosophy which deals with fantastic and surrealistic REIFIED concepts. Many people like to come here and claim that concepts like love and time perform verbs like “move mountains” or “dilate”. What they are doing is not even Philosophy, much less Physics. What they are doing is Religion. Physics ONLY deals with objects that exist. If God wants to qualify for existence, it is very simple. 'He' just needs to fill out a form, place His 2x2 picture on the upper right hand corner, and we’ll call ‘Him’ in for an interview. If He can’t make it for the interview....no problem....He can submit his application with a brief essay (i.e. Theory) of His best accomplishments....like creation, for example.
*** ANONYMOUS ARGUMENT OF DEDUCTION ***
Anonymous,
“The only option I know of other than judging a theory based on whether or not it satisfies observations is simple deductive analysis.”
Exactly, my friend. There is NO other OBJECTIVE option....ever!
But YOU are not doing DEDUCTIVE analysis with critical reasoning, unambiguous definitions, and rational explanations which are non-contradictory, as demanded by Science.
What YOU are doing is INDUCTIVE / EXTRAPOLATIVE declarations. You are building stairs to the sky (like the Tower of Babel). But you eventually realize that you cannot reach or touch this alleged object you call “Heaven” (i.e. time).
Q: So what do you do?
A: You stop building further stairs and dogmatically decree that the next virtual/conceptual step you take, even though there are no more stairs to step on,....that you will touch Heaven!
You are doing INDUCTION, an extrapolation which is has no supporting reasoning. You cannot reason WHY you allege that ‘time’ can be dilated. In fact, it is impossible for you to reason your claim that time is an object AND a concept. This is what happens when you extrapolate with critical reasoning and rational thought. This is beyond Philosophy. This is Religion. Only in Religion can a Priest, like Einstein, bend/dilate or perform VERBS on concepts like ‘time’ and ‘space’. Just like the Priest tells us that Jesus went (verb) to Heaven (a concept). You are doing the EXACT SAME extrapolation/induction a Priest does. You are doing Religion.
And you are extrapolating because you are NOT performing experiments/observations DIRECTLY with ‘time’ in your lab. You cannot take a chunk of ‘time’, put it in a beaker or on a bench, handle it, and do experiments with it. There is NO such object anywhere in the universe. You are IMAGINING this alleged scenario and EXTRAPOLATING, that IF this imagined concept/idea was indeed an object, then we COULD say that we have dilated it in our satellites.
You are attempting to talk LITERALLY (eg. I dilated ‘time’), but in fact, you are talking FIGURATIVELY (metaphorically, poetically).
THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE and has nothing to do with Physics. Physics is LITERAL. A spade is a spade!
You are taking a clock for a ride up in the satellite. You are moving a clock. This is the only experiment/observation you are doing....nothing else. You are NOT experimenting with ‘time’. Absolutely ALL clocks, whether mechanical, digital or atomic, are affected by the phenomenon of gravity. All atoms comprising a clock are pulled against gravity....even Mickey’s hands, ....even a beating crystal oscillator....even beating Cesium atoms in an atomic clock. Therefore, it goes without saying that motion of the atoms in these objects in motion will either slow down or speed up, depending on their direction of pull from gravity.
Time is impossible to dilate. It is atoms in clocks which have motion (i.e. pull/push) imparted on them. We’re done!!
The exact same thing can be done to a clock by strategically placing a magnet near it. You can speed it up or slow it down. You have dilated squat!
Anonymous,
As I have been fair to you, I expect you to be fair to this discussion.
Please only post arguments which are direct and to the point about the issues at hand: object/concept, time, etc. Please do not go off into tangents and post irrelevant stuff about beliefs, faiths, and anything regarding authority, democracy or politics.
Please do not repeat your debunked arguments. If you have NEW material which debunks anything I said (and you need to show the contradiction),...please be my guest and make an argument and stick with only that context. Do not veer off into tangents of authority, as this is a fallacy!
This is an intellectual conversation which deals with Physics. Please keep it that way. This means that you need to offer a RATIONAL non-contradictory argument or explanation of anything you claim.
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY ASSERTIONS OR STATEMENTS OF DECREE FROM RELATIVITY OR FROM ANYBODY ELSE. Anything you post MUST have a rational argument justifying it....like I have done with my posts.
Please, and Thank you.
Anonymous,
“Yes, space is curved.”
As explained before, space is a concept....our conception of nothing.
Space: that which lacks shape
It is impossible to perform verbs (curve, move, bend) to nothing/void/space. You care committing the FALLACY OF REIFICATION, yet again! You are doing Religion, not Science.
“No, not quite like a hammock or any analogy using English”
Duh! YOU ARE USING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS!!!
So you can’t retroactively retract those statements when cornered, and say ...ummm...duh....space does not bend. Either you can perform actions (VERBS) on a concept like space, or you can’t. And like I explained, you can’t.
Only OBJECTS can bend/warp/dilate their shape/form via physical surface-to-surface contact of their boundary with other objects. There is NO other option!
“If I was forced to pick an analogy”
Again with your analogies, metaphors, euphemisms, figures of speech???
This is Philosophy & Religion, not Science.
Science is 100% LITERAL....a rock is a rock....it is an object with shape/form and a surface. That’s what Physics is about.....REALITY....not FANTASY!
“Space is both concept and object, as is everything we experience.”
IMPOSSIBLE as explained in previous comments. Please refrain from re-posting your debunked arguments. Thank you.
Anonymous,
“ball.....This depends on the LAWS in your constructed universe, not the objects within it.”
Laws????
There are no laws in reality. The universe is comprised of no such entities called ‘laws’. Apparently, you confuse Science with the legal profession. There is NO Legislature or Parliament in the Universe. God is NOT the Judge and Executioner in the Universe. There are NO 10 Commandments! You are also confusing Science with Religion.
Law is a discipline that is full of liars... I mean lawyers. There are no lawyers in Physics. We don't take people to trial or ask them for their testimonies or ask them where they got their definitions. You should really make it a point to take an intro course in Science 101, it would really help you reason your answers more wisely.
In Science, we have rational explanations (called Theories), not laws. 'Laws' means that YOU adopted an explanation as YOUR personal truth. This is Politics and Religion. That doesn't concern Science in the least.
“The ball and earth would be attracted to one another”
Not according to General Relativity.
“They would be attracted via the proportions of mass and distance assuming no forces other than gravity interfered with this.”
NO FRIGGIN’ WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are talking about Newtonian gravity....not Einsteinian Gravity.
Are you familiar with GR? Did you even bother studying it, instead of merely coming here and asserting it as Gospel Truth?
Einstein, like Newton, treats gravity as a pull, but their maths, curved or not, are not able to explain all that we see. Newton’s biggest problem was force at a distance. He could not explain how a pull was transmitted through empty space. His theory was non-mechanical as it proposed no physical mediator for gravity. Einstein’s biggest problem was impetus to motion in the field. With the curves created by the field, he could describe an orbit or a continuation of a straight fall into a planet, but he could not explain WHY it happened or WHAT caused it. But his major flaw in GR was that he could not explain WHY a stationary object placed in a gravity field would begin moving directly toward the center of the source of that field. Einstein and his GR could not explain a simple question as: Why does a pen fall and accelerate to the floor when we let it go?
In Einstein’s math, the motions were determined by pre-existing curves, or by differentials from point to point in the gravitational field, not by pulling forces at a distance. Einstein’s field is not an inertial or dynamical system; it is a purely mathematical system. A body in the system does not move in a curve because it feels a force, it moves in a curve because he alleges & decrees that space is curved, and the space is curved because the math is curved. It moves in a curve while feeling no forces. Why? Because there are no forces in GR, just a mathematically curved space! This is an automatic failure for GR. How can this warped space induce a gravitational effect without feeling any forces? It can’t! Space is a nothing, and not curved. Only ‘something’ can be curved.
The equations were expressly chosen to avoid the inertial system, and without an inertial system, you don’t need to explain forces or accelerations. In fact, in Einstein’s equations, all forces and accelerations are only apparent. There is no centripetal acceleration, since the field is already allegedly curved. And even a body in freefall is not really accelerating. According to Einstein’s math, a body in freefall is experiencing a constant velocity, according to its own local measurements. It is simply moving into adjacent field “levels” where velocity is measured differently. Since these levels are not equivalent, mathematically, you need GR transforms to go from one to the other. The difference in velocities at different levels is therefore not a real acceleration, it is only a difference in transforms. According to Einstein’s postulates, the body does not accelerate, the transforms (math) do. What an idiot!!!!
The problem is, it doesn’t solve the problem of the ball at rest. It only makes it go away by hiding it in the math. Einstein avoids the inertial system by making his math the cause of the motions. The curved math does all the physical work, with no need of real forces or accelerations. But clearly this is a cheat of gigantic proportions. It is beyond belief that he was never called on it. He was never called on it because no one understood how this curved math was really working, or how powerful it was as a heuristic tool. The only ones who understood the math, those like Hilbert and Klein and Weyl and Minkowski, were thrilled to have it used in a famous physical theory. So they weren’t going to spill the beans. The mathematicians were the ones who had proposed the equations in the first place. And no one else could see through the veils because they didn’t understand simple math calculus.
To say it again, the problem is that you cannot let your math carry your forces. The math should represent motions, not cause them. In Einstein’s field equations, the motions are caused by the field curvature, and the field curvature is caused by the MATH!!!! So it is the math that causes the motions. In curved math, the math becomes a force. The math becomes the first cause, the impetus to motion. The math replaces the inertial system. That is not a theoretical advance, that is a theoretical and mathematical CHEAT. In essence, the physical gravitational effect just magically happens in reality because the math causes it to happen.
If we PLACE a STATIONARY object at some altitude over the Earth, and use Newton’s field theory, we can describe its immediate fall by a force between that object and the Earth. Using Einstein’s field theory, we CANNOT describe nor explain its fall. Yes, if it is already moving in any direction, we can describe its subsequent motion by field differentials. If it is already falling, we can describe its continued fall and continued apparent acceleration by field differentials. If it is in orbit, we can describe its continued orbit by the curvature of the math. Using Einstein’s field equations, we can describe any motion except falling from a state of rest. There is no mechanism in Einstein’s field to push the resting object from one level to the next lower one. Since there is no inertial or dynamical field, nothing is or can be impelling the body to move from one point to the other. Ironically, Einstein’s equations cover the description of any possible motion in the field except motion from rest. But Einstein cannot explain WHY this motion and acceleration happens. He cannot explain WHY an object moves and accelerates in his curved space gravity well. He can only mathematically describe the motion and the acceleration with his equations. Einstein's equations DESCRIBE the path of a point particle (the alleged center of mass of an object like Mercury) around the Sun. The field equations do NOT explain WHY Mercury does not drift out of the Solar System because they have no physical explanation for gravity in nature.
RELATIVITY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION FROM REST!!
RELATIVITY = RELIGION
RELATIVITY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION FROM REST!!
They'll tell you (for a rock resting on the ground) Newton's third law or normal force covers this or that it is the electrostatic force of the electron shells of the ground and the rock repelling each other, and that you can push a scale on to the ground to actually measure the force!
“They'll tell you (for a rock resting on the ground) Newton's third law or normal force covers this”
This is beyond ignorance and BS. Only a brain-dead snail would make such a claim.
Newton did not propose a mediator for gravity because this Religious Clown was NOT a Scientist, he was a God-fearing Mathematician. Newton blind-sided every generation thereafter by deflecting the reality of genuine, qualitative Physics towards quantitative Mathematical concepts. Newton did by far more harm than good. This numskull that many take as their demi-god was the fella who said “hypothesis non fingo.” He did NOT have the Scientific aptitude to propose a Hypothesis for a mediator for gravity. Newton never hit a home run in his entire life regarding Physics. He didn't understand anything about how the universe works. He only gave us some equations which describe paths of trajectories and similar conceptual nonsense that any 10 year-old can figure out by plotting graph charts of distance vs time and dropping rocks from a ladder. He had no idea what 'motion' or ‘time’ or ‘space’ is and never defined these words. If anybody thinks I am lying, they can check Newton's Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion instead of gawking at authority.
Pastor Einstein otoh, was deeply troubled all his life about his General Theory of Relativity. He knew it was BS from the get go (warping space, yeah right...LOL) and he was searching to find a MEDIATOR for gravity, instead of sticking with his initial proposal that his Math equations had SUPERNATURAL POWERS to pull a ball towards the Earth.....which everyone gawked at and swallowed btw.
Q: What was Pastor Al’s proposed mediator??
A: The aether, which was debunked by Michelson-Morley many times.
Math Fyzicysts claim that General Relativity theory proved that the aether doesn't exist. This is totally FALSE and has been suppressed on purpose because it is embarrassing to them after the conclusions by Michelson-Morley contradict Pastor Einstein’s bold statements.
And I quote:
"According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable" (University of Leyden, May 5, 1920) – Albert Einstein
Pastor Einstein said this 40 years after Michelson told everyone that there was no aether.
In 1920, after Pastor Al developed the General relativity, he arrived to the conclusion that the ether should exist, otherwise there is no physical mechanism for gravity under GR, and a motionless ball cannot be attracted to the Earth. This fact is of enormous importance and is always ignored/censored when the Math Fyzics community cites the contributions of Albert Einstein. The Einstein statement from 1920 is DELIBERATELY missing in academia’s physics textbooks, where only his articles from 1905 are mentioned. The Math Fyzics establishment did NOT want to associate itself with the ether, but yet wanted to be able to account for gravity and spacetime using GR. And this is a complete contradiction in terms. They cannot have it both ways. Either space is a physical substance, an ether, which is capable of physically restraining planets within their orbits, or space is nothing, meaning that GR fails.
After 1916, Einstein returned to a revised form of the ether concept as a result of the general theory of relativity. In a letter to Lorentz dated 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote (quoted in Miller, 1986, p. 55; see also Kostro, 1988, p. 238):
“I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state [...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through the metrical phenomena.” – Einstein
In the 1910-1925 period, A. Einstein proposed an interpretation of his General Relativity that took recourse to an Aether of Space, a Gravitational Aether, responsible for the production of space and gravity as physical effects.
In 1919, in reference to Eddington’s alleged confirmation of his theory, Einstein stated that his theory was CORRECT! However, he wasn’t as cocky by the time he died. The punchline is that Einstein died an atheist in his own religion, writing to his friend Besso in 1954 that:
“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” -- Albert Einstein (p. 467) [1]
"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore." -- Albert Einstein
Anyone who half read Einstein's struggle to find the Holy Grail in his last few years concludes that Einstein lost his faith in his own theories, indeed, in all of Math Fyziks. He was at least aware that he and all the mathematicians were wrong. Maybe that qualifies him as the most intelligent mathematician... but that's not a whole lot.
He never made it past warped space, and he certainly rejected and debunked Quantum. Einstein tried many times in his life to claim that space is an object....an aether ocean which can bend and warp. The Math Fyziks Community told him to go f*** himself with a broomstick and go climb a mountain, because any notion of aether was a big no-no after the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein has no place in the history of Science. He's just another of those Hollywood celebrities like Hawking, Sagan, Mr. Spock, and a couple of lesser names.
RELATIVITY = RELIGION....Even Pastor Al admitted it....it's on the record in black and white.
Yes, and it's amazing the slight of hand one gets from physicists on Newtonian phiz let alone GR. Thanx for your detailed response!
From A NASA physics Forum responding to a question about Newton's 3rd Law Of Motion as it relates to an object at rest (they were discussing normal force )
Q: Newton's 3rd law applies only for dynamic cases?
A: In a way, yes.
"When two compact objects ("point masses" in phystalk) act on each other, they accelerate in opposite directions, and the ratio of their accelerations is always the same. "
This only makes sense in dynamics. The way the 3rd law is usually formulated, though ("every action has an equal and opposite reaction"), is ambiguous and may be viewed as covering statics as well.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/StarFAQ24.h
Of course it's ambiguous!
Dark matter is the new aether.
Winston,
"Dark matter is the new aether."
Indeed. Just as long as you don't call it "aether" or "ether" (Math Fyzicysts have trouble spelling it). These are the taboo words from the late 1800's.
Nahhh....these days they call it: spacetime, space-time, spacetime continuum, dark matter, dark energy, ...some even call it plasma. It’s all the same crap...the aether! Even Pastor Einstein admitted that SPACETIME = AETHER.
In 1920, Paul Ehrenfest, who was particularly close to Einstein and Bohr, had written to Einstein:
“I know that many hundreds of people will fall on your ether speech like a hungry pack of wolves.”
In 1952, the Mathematician Edmund Whittaker wrote:
“It came to be generally recognized that the aether is an immaterial medium, sui generis, not composed of identifiable elements having definite locations in absolute space.”
IMMATERIAL huh?? Boy...that sounds exactly what Theologians are saying about God! LOL, what a friggin' Religious Circus Show this Relativity is...
Poeple also fail to realize that the famous equation E = mc² was not Einstein’s discovery. It was first published by the Italian engineer Olinto De Pretto in 1903. In his 1905 paper on relativity, Einstein acknowledged the assistance of his friend Michael Besso, who was a friend of the De Pretto family. He did not, however, include a single reference to papers by other scientists whose ideas he was trying to synthesize.....including Lorentz’s ideas of transformation which Einstein used to bend and stretch mass, space, length and time in order to make the speed of light “FIT” the observations. Einstein was a COMPLETE FRAUD!!
As for time dilation/clock slowing, the 1972 Hafele & Keating experiment found that an atomic clock transported eastward around the world lost 59 nanoseconds while a clock transported westward gained 273 nanoseconds ....though it was eventually revealed that the ‘massaged’ results they published bear little resemblance to the raw data, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
Hafele admitted that moving clocks do not run slow by the amount proposed by the Lorentz transformation (the gamma factor). Contrary to SR, the slowing of clocks is a function of their speed relative to the earth’s rotation. This is also demonstrated by the clocks carried on satellites forming part of the GPS. Obviously, clock slowing and the fact that the rate of radioactive decay of mesons slows down when they move at high speed do not prove that time itself ‘dilates’ or slows down. It is unquestionable that motion affects the internal processes of atomic motion. All physical devices used for time-keeping are subject to error when accelerated or decelerated, or moved through gravitational fields of different strengths because EVERY SINGLE ATOM OF THE EARTH IS PULLING ON EVERY SINGLE ATOM OF THE CLOCK DEVICE.
TIME DILATION = FRAUD!!
Q: Considering its contradictions and inability to explain any natural phenomena, from light, to gravity, etc..... WHY is Pastor Al’s Religion of Relativity so popular?
A: For the exact SAME reason that Christianity, Islam and other Religions are so popular and believed by over 98% of the people on this planet.
Here....I will let Pastor Al speak for himself, as I don’t want to strawman him...
"Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." -- Albert Einstein
In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: “There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.”
Winston: Dark Matter is the new aether.
FatFist, please excuse me for giving air to the Phiz Whiz theories.
In Rock Star Brian Green's Fabric of the Cosmos on PBS, the idea was presented that space can bend, twist and ripple, that it is not like Newton’s static model, but that space is something dynamic. He said that even if we remove every”thing” there would still be something left that we can’t see (that does not interact with light). Energy forms the fabric of space. We call this energy Dark Energy.
I remembered reading about this once in Scientific American and found it here:
"Gravity pulls chemical elements and dark matter into stars and galaxies and repels dark energy into a thin quantum field less than 4 electrons volts per cubic millimeter." http://dhushara.freehosting.net/book/upd/aug201/co
Einstein also thought that space was static and it had to do with vacuum energy. He came up with the cosmological constant.
An equilibrium between opposing forces of energy density and pressure. A balance between the attractive and repulsive forces of gravity (called critical density).
BUT, the total mass of matter and dark matter is a third of what was predicted . There must be additional energy. That would be dark energy. It should show in the background radiation as hot and cold spots. The Swiss cheese example in Fabric was a way of explaining the hot and cold spots in the microwave background (CMB).
Einstein said that if you added up the average density of matter and dark matter, the average density of dark energy and the curvature of space you would get the critical density.
Scientists looked at matter, the CMB and super novae. Putting these numbers together in a graph, the math overlaps at a common point (the zero line on the chart) indicating space to be flat (a point in favor of dark energy).
Cosmo physicists coined a term quintessence (the 5th element) a quantum field which explains the repulsive force of gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintessence_%28physi
The ratio of pressure to energy density is w.
If w drops below -1/3 gravity is repulsive.
The idea is that gravity has a repulsive force which accounts for the universe expanding at an accelerating rate.
That space itself is expanding as well. Inflation doesn't end everywhere at once, therefore there are multiple big bangs.
Multiverses-eternal expansion with energy turning into matter.
In our universe there is a relatively small amount of energy in space to account for this eternal expansion (trillions of times smaller than predicted). Point 120zeros and a 1. Smaller than predicted, but just right (the goldylocks principle) for galaxies and stars and planets to form. Any less energy and everything collapses.Any more energy and expansion is at a rate
too fast to collapse and everything "flies apart."
In Fabric, the point 120zeros plus 1 value was the just right (Goldylocks principle) condition for this universe. Take away 5 zeros and the expansion rate would be too great for stars and galaxies to form . Add a few zeros, (Any amount greater than 4 electron volts per mm in the quantum field) and the universe would collapse.
The Phiz Whiz doesn't know what Dark Matter is made of, but thinks it could be the neutralino (Higss Boson?) a supersymetric particle. That's what they're trying to find by colliding imaginary particles together in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
So Dark Matter (MACHOS & WIMPS) makes up 70% of the Universe, Dark Energy 25% (Higgs Field), and the rest is everything else. MACHOS are probably Black Holes, neutron stars, or brown dwarfs. WIMPS are sub-atomic particles, like neutrinos, Axions and neutrolinos. http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/w
Anyways that's what I think they are saying. No limit to what the imagination can come up with. And mathmagicians have an infinite amount of dark energy at hand to pluck an infinite amount of dark matter randomly from their black holes.
This is going to be very long, but I worked very carefully to explicitly state and argue for the postulates of special relativity before proceeding to an example of time dilation. I also am going to go over some very basic 2d geometry and physics in order to help you guys along. This is, as promised, my best effort at illustrating an example of time dilation in SR without blatantly hitting you upside the head with a bunch of calculus. Good luck!
On Special Relativity:
General relativity theory is pretty difficult to grasp. Very few people have the ability to intuit GR without first being acquainted with the advanced mathematics associated with the theory. It takes a very special mind to accomplish such a feat. It takes… well… an Einstein! So, just about all physicists start learning relativity theory with special relativity rather than general relativity. This is because special relativity can be demonstrated using highschool/undergraduate level physics/mathematics.
First of all, special relativity posits a couple reasonable propositions:
1) The passage of time can be measured by accurate well-calibrated clocks.
2) The laws of physics should be the same for all observers, regardless as to their frame of reference (the principle of relativity).
And one very odd proposition:
3) Measuring the speed of light will always produce a constant value, regardless as to the frame of reference of an observer.
Before continuing, it is important to make some notes about these propositions:
Proposition 1) is the working definition of time employed by all of experimental physics to date. While it is true that a comprehensive analysis of time lies beyond the purview of contemporary physics, we can still make coherent statements about time and particularly the rate of its passage as measured by clocks. To say otherwise would be just like saying people were incorrect in proclaiming “The sun is hot!” before nuclear fusion was known to be the sun’s ultimate source of energy. Furthermore, a theory of time which fails to admit 1) would be experimentally impotent, as it would lack a way to measure time. Such a theory would be esoteric and useless with respect to scientific application.
Proposition 2) underwrites all of physics. All physical laws must satisfy 2) in order to be truly objective. If a proposed law did not satisfy 2), then it would not be applicable in absolutely every case. In other words, 2) is a necessary precondition for the ascension of a statement to a physical law.
Proposition 3) is without doubt the most controversial of the above three. Even Einstein would probably not have believed 3) without first being exposed to some experimental evidence. He found some evidence in the Michelson-Morley experiment conducted in 1887; this experiment used interferometers to check if the speed of light changed due to the shifting direction of earth’s orbit around the sun. No deviation was detected, and it was hailed as evidence against something called a luminiferous ether. Einstein later expanded the conclusion, which is where we get 3). Since then, all experimental data has confirmed 3) over and over again. So, although 3) may be unintuitive at first glance, there is a LOT of evidence out there which suggests we should not trust those initial intuitions.
Some Fundamentals:
There are a couple very simple mathematical ideas which will aid in understanding the following example. The first is the Pythagorean Theorem:
4) a^2 + b^2 = c^2 (where a and be are the legs of a right triangle, and c is the hypotenuse)
For our purposes, the most important thing to take away from 4) is that c will ALWAYS be greater than either a or b.
The second simple mathematical idea is that of a vector. Vectors are quantities used in physics which have both magnitude and direction. A vector is like a line in that it is straight and has a magnitude (a value denoting length), but different in that it has a direction. The magnitude of a vector is analogous with the speed an object travels through space, while the direction of a vector is analogous with the direction an object travels through space.
We can break down vectors into smaller vectors through the process of vector addition, i.e., it is possible to add vectors together to make new vectors with different values for magnitude (speed through space) and direction (direction through space). So, for example, if we have a vector in a two-dimensional coordinate system which sits on a diagonal, let’s call it c. we can break this vector down into the addition of two smaller vectors, let’s call them a and b. One of these vectors will be parallel to the y-axis and the other to the x-axis. This particular vector addition would look exactly like a right triangle. The legs are the two smaller vectors a and b added together and separated by a 90 degree angle, while the hypotenuse c is the original diagonal vector. The only significant difference being that this right triangle would be built of arrows indicating the directions of the vectors rather than lines. All the logical properties of a right triangle will apply to this vector addition. Most importantly for our purposes, the hypotenuse vector c will ALWAYS have greater magnitude (speed) than either a or b (see 4)).
To take a real-world example, we can model the flight of any thrown projectile (ball, catapult ammo, artillery shell, rocket ship) this way. By calculating both the initial vertical and horizontal velocities of a projectile, we can very successfully predict where said projectile will fall. In fact, over the years, we have developed this to an exacting art via flight, military, and space travel applications.
Okay, basic math aside, let’s proceed to our example of time dilation:
Two observers at rest each have a special clock. This clock is made of a light emitter set at a certain height, a mirror at ground level, and a detector next to the light emitter. The time it takes for a beam of light to travel from the emitter to the mirror and back to the detector is measured to be some fixed value k by BOTH observers.
Now, suppose that one of the observers boards a train while the other stays on the train platform. While at rest on the train, the boarded observer confirms with the observer on the platform that their clocks are still in sync (that the time taken for light to travel from emitter to detector is a fixed k).
The train begins to move. Imagine you are the observer at rest on the platform and that you can somehow see the beam of light between your counterpart’s emitter and detector. The beam of light travels down to the mirror, but as it does so, THE TRAIN MOVES TO THE SIDE. The beam of light travels back up to the detector, but as it does so, THE TRAIN MOVES TO THE SIDE. In other words, the beam of light is NO LONGER TRAVELING IN STRAIGHT UP-DOWN LINES. The beam of light is actually traveling in diagonals which form right triangles via vector addition.
If the beam of light were some object like a ball, we could easily model this process using the simple vector addition described above. We would just add a vector along the x-axis (with magnitude exactly equal to the velocity of the train) to the vector along the y-axis (this y-axis vector was set prior to the train’s motion), thus creating our LARGER hypotenuse vector. However, this would imply, by proposition 4), that the beam of light would now be traveling FASTER than it had while at rest by the train platform.
Remember proposition 3)? That the speed of light is a constant c REGARDLESS AS TO THE FRAME OF REFERENCE OF THE OBSERVER MEASURING IT? This implies that our beam of light will not be seen to increase in speed. But, according to the observer at rest on the train platform, the beam of light on the train is now traveling along larger hypotenuse vectors than the vertical vector of his clock. The beam of light is traveling a GREATER DISTANCE at THE SAME SPEED. Thus, the observer on the train platform concludes that it is taking a LONGER TIME for the train-bound clock to complete its emitter-mirror-detector cycle.
Yet, according to the observer on the train, who does not witness the effect of the train’s velocity on his own clock, the train-bound clock is still ticking along at the same old fixed value k it was all along. Thus, that fixed value k has become ‘bigger’ for this observer. His time has ‘dilated’. If you don’t like the words bigger and dilated applied to time, then you can still say that the rate at which time passes for the boarded observer has slowed compared to the rate at which time passes for the platform observer. The rate at which time passes for observers in motion slows relative to the rate at which time passes for observers at rest.
No alternate explanation for this phenomenon is necessary. If you follow the example above, it is simply the effect of gaining speed relative to other observers which slows the passage of time. Your motion through space effects time. Space and time are thus intertwined. To find out more about how this could possibly be true, I suggest you go pick up some basic Modern Physics textbooks. Relativity theory seems very radical at first, but it makes perfect logical sense given its initial postulates are correct. And thus far, ALL experimental data has demonstrated that those postulates (such as 3)) are indeed correct.
Thank you for taking your time to explain some things.
Sorry, I don't have time to answer in greater detail.
" Insofar as mathematics is true, it does not describe the real world. Insofar as it describes the real world, it is not true." - Einstein
"1) The passage of time can be measured by accurate well-calibrated clocks."
Time is a man made concept. It is an object at 2 or more locations plus an observers memory. Nature doesn't remember anything. W/o memory, no time.
"2) The laws of physics should be the same for all observers, regardless as to their frame of reference (the principle of relativity)."
Nature doesn't recognize laws. Again man-made concept.
"3) Measuring the speed of light will always produce a constant value, regardless as to the frame of reference of an observer."
Science, especially physics is observer-independent.
"By calculating both the initial vertical and horizontal velocities of a projectile, we can very successfully predict where said projectile will fall."
Can do this w/o math too. Ever played horseshoes?
"Your motion through space effects time."
A clock's motion through space affects clocks.
"Space and time are thus intertwined."
Space is nothing. Time is a concept not a thing. Nothing and a concept can not be intertwined.
Hi anonymous,
“General relativity theory is pretty difficult to grasp. Very few people have the ability to intuit GR ....It takes a very special mind to accomplish such a feat. It takes… well… an Einstein!”
Please anonymous.....your arguments from authority are fallacious....and are starting to get very boring. You don’t need any math to understand the universe or to posit a theory which rationally explains natural phenomena. Mother Nature never went to school....she knows no math. She only knows objects and how to change their location. You can copy/paste all the math and calculus you want here....I understand all of calculus....and trust me....it won’t help your case.
“1) The passage of time can be measured by accurate well-calibrated clocks.”
No! Clocks do NOT measure ‘time’. Clocks measure the rate of motion of an OBJECT....like the motion of the Earth wrt the Sun.
Time is a scalar quantity used for quantifying motion (ie. measuring movement). It doesn't slow down, speed up, dilate, contract, bend, warp, shrink, expand, etc. any more than a meter shrinks or expands. Only the object being measured can speed up, slow down, dilate, shrink, or expand.
Did you even bother reading my last comments to you where I EXPLAIN IN DETAIL what time is???
“a comprehensive analysis of time lies beyond the purview of contemporary physics”
If you don’t even know what it is....THEN YOU CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO TALK ABOUT IT.....MUCH LESS DILATE IT, BEND IT, DISTORT IT OR PERFORM ANY VERBS ON IT....got it?
“we can still make coherent statements about time and particularly the rate of its passage as measured by clocks.”
Contradiction: If you don’t know WHAT it is, then you cannot make any statements about it....much less “coherent” ones.
Contradiction: Fallacy of Reification – time is a concept....time does not “pass”, like a freight train passes. You are reifying a concept into an object.
It is Religion which deals with fantastic and surrealistic REIFIED concepts. You come here and claim that concepts like love and time perform verbs like “move mountains” or “dilate”. What YOU are doing is not even Philosophy, much less Physics. What YOU are doing is Religion. Physics ONLY deals with objects that exist. If ‘time’ wants to qualify for existence, it is very simple. ....’time’ just needs to fill out a form, place His 2x2 picture on the upper right hand corner, and we’ll call ‘Him’ in for an interview. If ‘time’ can’t make it for the interview....no problem....just draw an image of ‘time’ or more conveniently, just reference an image of ‘it’ anywhere on the internet.
You are using metaphors and poetry to do Religion....not Science!
I already explained this to you in my previous posts.....did you even bother reading?
“Michelson-Morley experiment conducted in 1887; this experiment used interferometers to check if the speed of light changed due to the shifting direction of earth’s orbit around the sun. No deviation was detected, and it was hailed as evidence against something called a luminiferous ether. Einstein later expanded the conclusion, which is where we get 3).”
Einstein was the stupid idiot who ASSERTED the existence of the ether!!!!!!
And I quote, yet AGAIN, because you didn’t even read my last posts about Pastor Einstein:
"According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable" (University of Leyden, May 5, 1920) – Albert Einstein
"According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable" (University of Leyden, May 5, 1920) – Albert Einstein
"According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable" (University of Leyden, May 5, 1920) – Albert Einstein
"According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable" (University of Leyden, May 5, 1920) – Albert Einstein
"According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable" (University of Leyden, May 5, 1920) – Albert Einstein
"According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable" (University of Leyden, May 5, 1920) – Albert Einstein
"According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable" (University of Leyden, May 5, 1920) – Albert Einstein
Pastor Einstein said this 40 years after Michelson told everyone that there was no aether.
In 1920, after Pastor Al developed the General relativity, he arrived to the conclusion that the ether should exist, otherwise there is no physical mechanism for gravity under GR, and a motionless ball cannot be attracted to the Earth.
PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS TO YOU AND PLEASE STOP REPOSTING YOUR DUBUNKED NONSENSE!
1) Time is NOT an object which can be amenable to VERBS, like ‘dilate’ or ‘stretch’. It is impossible to dilate concepts, like time.
2) Einstein said that GR is 100% an ETHER/AETHER THEORY!!
@anonymous,
NOTE: Without a minimum of 3 objects.....2 moving wrt each other....and the 3rd recording or tracking their movements at pre-specified intervals....then quantifying motion is impossible, and there is no concept of time (a motion quantifier).
Without humans or sentient beings with “memory”, there is no activity that can be performed to “discern” before & after for events (verbs). Since there would be nobody around to “count” ticks at PRE-DEFINED intervals, then there would be no deliberate “human” or “computer” activity (verb) that we currently call “time”.
Time is a VERB...it is a sequential activity performed by an object.
As a dynamic concept, time necessarily requires an observer with memory: time = motion + memory
It is impossible to dilate time. So you are barking up the wrong tree and chasing your tail in circles because you have NO clue what 'time' even is, nor are you able to define it.
So Mr. Anonymous....looks like you finally got educated in the Religion of Einstein's Relativity.
See....I told you that you were doing Religion instead of Philosophy!
AKA Winston Level 5 Commenter 22 months ago
Oh MaGoo, you've done it again.