V
victorespinoza
Guest
Where are the evidence that the time exists?
Gravity slows down time.
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
And I of course unlike you, I would appreciate RW's methodology from this point.
Irresepctive, it will not falsify what I have posted.
Once again, grow up, you had your dummy spit over two days ago now.
Emm ... ahh .. nah ...
I'll take a positive approach and say he's just making a little joke
You really are a pain in the arse.
Lies, deceit, dummy spitting, and support for a kindred soul...The last one you now are trying to back out of as is painfully obvious.
No you won't stop me posting here, and your continued diatribe and dummy spits will be to no avail.
As you noted, the thread is 500 odd posts long, and your mate chinglu has been side stepping the issue from the first page.
Now you see the need to stick your silly head in and attempt to take me to task for my attitude towards him......
I will continue to post when and where I see my contribution will count.
And I will refute any pseudoscience quackery when I see a need for it, and none of your silly antics, and attempts of putting me down will stop that.
You got the message????
I doubt it!
Yes, we can't falsify that, either !
And that's why it's called "Relativity"!!!
That sort of sums up SR.....As I have said a multitude of times, each clock, the stay at home one, and the travelling one, is correct in their own FoRs, and its only when the travelling one returns to the FoR of the stay at home one, that Time Dilation is there for all to see.
Hmm, I think that too, is pretty much falsifiable !!!
And what confines this and most pseudoscience quackery to the dustbin is of course it fails the scientific methodolgy....
[1] Making observations of the Universe around us:
[2] Form a hypothesis based on those observations:
[3] Undertake an experiment based on that hypothesis:
[4] Analyse and get the data peer reviewed:
[5] Publish results to allow further experiment and peer review:
This silly claim re SR, falls at number 2
[1] Making observations of the Universe around us:
[2] Form a hypothesis based on those observations:
[3] Undertake an experiment based on that hypothesis:
[4] Analyse and get the data peer reviewed:
[5] Publish results to allow further experiment and peer review:
This silly claim re SR, falls at number 2
I have always felt that scientists bashing pseudoscience may be a losing game; the "other side" uses emotional arguments and logical fallacies that appeal to our less rational brains, and can sway people far better than graphs, statistics, and, let’s face it, reality.
Phil Plait:
Phil Plait:
Since this debate is all but over, with nothing forthcoming invalidating SR/GR, despite all the huffing and puffing and refusal to answer questions from our anti SR/GR friends.......
Astonomer #1: .....so anyway the cop pulls me over and asks if I realized
that I had just run a red light. So I said that I did not see the light as
being red, because it must have blue-shifted as i was approaching it.
Astronomer #2: And he let you go?
Astronomer #1: No. He gave me a speeding ticket instead.
Astonomer #1: .....so anyway the cop pulls me over and asks if I realized
that I had just run a red light. So I said that I did not see the light as
being red, because it must have blue-shifted as i was approaching it.
Astronomer #2: And he let you go?
Astronomer #1: No. He gave me a speeding ticket instead.
Since this debate is all but over, with nothing forthcoming invalidating SR/GR, despite all the huffing and puffing and refusal to answer questions from our anti SR/GR friends.......
Astonomer #1: .....so anyway the cop pulls me over and asks if I realized
that I had just run a red light. So I said that I did not see the light as
being red, because it must have blue-shifted as i was approaching it.
Astronomer #2: And he let you go?
Astronomer #1: No. He gave me a speeding ticket instead.
Astronomer #3;
All science must be falsifiable
Paddoyboy;
And I of course unlike you, I would appreciate RW's methodology from this point.Irresepctive, it will not falsify what I have posted.
LOL ..every time ..
Wiki .. falsifiability (is) the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
I suspected the depth of your stupidity much earlier on, but was hoping you were only trolling.However,
- A self confessed anti establishmentarian
- A self confessed simpleton
- A self confessed thread derailer
- A proven fraud
- And now a self admitted dolt, steeped in psuedoscience.
You've never even understood the basic premise of FALSIFIABILITY, have you ?
Somewhere, somehow, you failed at science .. badly .. and you've spent your life trying to attach to real scientists.
You proceed in your near infinite stupidity under a false assumption...as usual.
I'm asking you to falsify it.....or your kindred mate....but neither of you can!
Falsifiability of science is the accepted open ended possibility that it could be possible to falsify it.
For example and for your own education....It is theoretically possible to falsify SR tomorrow, with a contrary observation. But neither you or chinglu are able to do that.
Or Europeans once thought all swans were white.....Now that was falsified when they finally occupied Australia.
Your efforts driven by your anti-science persona, your anger and bitterness towards me, and your aligning with the forum troll, paints you as a goose.
Maybe one day, you can show that to be falsified....I won't hold my breath though.
You see lakon, the overwhelming support I have in this bitter little conflict with you simply because I along with many others [which you deceitfully ignore] have poured scorn on chinglu's claims, is down in this thread in black and white.
And all that it takes is to check out from the beginning those 550 or so threads, which of course by your own admission, is too much trouble for you. [plus of course, they happen to reveal the truth]
But like your kindred soul, you still keep posting your continued crap, chinglu's in opposition to SR/GR, you of course against my person, driven by your incessant anger and bitterness.....which in reality has me worried somewhat for your well-being.
Now I will suggest a few things....[1] forget me exposing you for what you are...It takes all kinds, and you just happen to draw the short straw. Not too much we can do about that now. [2] Forget the anguish your kindred mate must be suffering...It's his own doing through his anti science effort, [3] Forget me, and try and relax more, as I said, I will continue posting any refutation I see that is in order about any fasle claims chinglu or anyone else likes to perpetrate. [4] Forget the nastiness, bitterness and control your anger...It has been shown scientifically, that to continue under such duress, is of no benefit to the heart.
Actually what I suggested in sarcasm earlier, re taking a disprin and having a good lie down, may not be a bad thing to do in your continued situation.
And all that it takes is to check out from the beginning those 550 or so threads, which of course by your own admission, is too much trouble for you. [plus of course, they happen to reveal the truth]
But like your kindred soul, you still keep posting your continued crap, chinglu's in opposition to SR/GR, you of course against my person, driven by your incessant anger and bitterness.....which in reality has me worried somewhat for your well-being.
Now I will suggest a few things....[1] forget me exposing you for what you are...It takes all kinds, and you just happen to draw the short straw. Not too much we can do about that now. [2] Forget the anguish your kindred mate must be suffering...It's his own doing through his anti science effort, [3] Forget me, and try and relax more, as I said, I will continue posting any refutation I see that is in order about any fasle claims chinglu or anyone else likes to perpetrate. [4] Forget the nastiness, bitterness and control your anger...It has been shown scientifically, that to continue under such duress, is of no benefit to the heart.
Actually what I suggested in sarcasm earlier, re taking a disprin and having a good lie down, may not be a bad thing to do in your continued situation.
Since chinglu and his mate have refused to watch and/or comment on the videos of SR and time dilation, I may give a layman's version of what the videos I have posted have basically been saying.......
Time Dilation
…Time Dilation is not a “theoretical possibility”, it is a real effect. Time dilation is a consequence of the postulates of Special Relativity. It works like this:
Consider a single light photon bouncing between two parallel mirrors. If you are in the same FoR as the photon, you see it bounce vertically up and down. However if the FoR with the two mirrors is moving past you at a certain speed, then you see it move forward as it bounces.
This is graphically illustrated in both videos.
In other words the path of the photon is now zig-zagged, as the two mirrors move to the right. Now, to the stationary observer, the path length of the photon appears to have increased. If the photon was a ball, then the apparent speed of the ball to the stationary observer would be different which would account for the different path length and times – however SR tells us that all observers will observe the same speed of light, regardless of relative motion.
What this means is that we must account for the discrepancy in the path and time length by adjusting our “common sense” notions of absolute space and time.
That is what we believed in Newton's time re the absolute status of space and time, is just not true.
The consequence is that if I imagine a FOR moving past me at a certain velocity, then I will observe a clock in that moving frame to run slow (time dilation). This is simply because observations of time and space depend on the observers motion with respect to the target. In the FoR of the clock, it will observe time to run normally.
In summing, time dilation occurs at all velocities. In everyday velocities the effect is not noticeable, as velocities approach the speed of light, the effect becomes more noticeable.
Time Dilation
…Time Dilation is not a “theoretical possibility”, it is a real effect. Time dilation is a consequence of the postulates of Special Relativity. It works like this:
Consider a single light photon bouncing between two parallel mirrors. If you are in the same FoR as the photon, you see it bounce vertically up and down. However if the FoR with the two mirrors is moving past you at a certain speed, then you see it move forward as it bounces.
This is graphically illustrated in both videos.
In other words the path of the photon is now zig-zagged, as the two mirrors move to the right. Now, to the stationary observer, the path length of the photon appears to have increased. If the photon was a ball, then the apparent speed of the ball to the stationary observer would be different which would account for the different path length and times – however SR tells us that all observers will observe the same speed of light, regardless of relative motion.
What this means is that we must account for the discrepancy in the path and time length by adjusting our “common sense” notions of absolute space and time.
That is what we believed in Newton's time re the absolute status of space and time, is just not true.
The consequence is that if I imagine a FOR moving past me at a certain velocity, then I will observe a clock in that moving frame to run slow (time dilation). This is simply because observations of time and space depend on the observers motion with respect to the target. In the FoR of the clock, it will observe time to run normally.
In summing, time dilation occurs at all velocities. In everyday velocities the effect is not noticeable, as velocities approach the speed of light, the effect becomes more noticeable.
paddoboy said:
Careful, paddoboy; in your zeal to defend mainstream 'understandings', you should not be swayed by or depend on such facile/shallow catchcries as the one you quote above. That is no sort of valid 'explanation' of any kind, since it makes no logical or physical sense 'as put' by AlexG there.
Consider: The "second" is an agreed standard of duration based on a particular state/location from which that standard applies. So any variation from that state is ipso facto a NON-standard frame of reference; and hence any 'tick' by a clock in that new state is a NON-standard duration and NOT a 'standard second' as such. Which makes that facile statement of AlexG's a non sequitur because the 'second' duration period 'ticked off' by the clock in the new state is NOT ACTUALLY the same 'second' duration period 'ticked off' by that same clock in its 'standard' starting state agreed by all previously as THE 'satandard second duration period for all comparisons to departures therefrom.
So the correct phrasing by AlexG should have been:
Understand, mate? It is a subtle 'fallacy' contained in the original facile phrasing you quoted; but it carries very serious potential for misunderstanding/misstating the actual state of affairs it purports to describe/explain regarding the 'weighting' of any NON-standard "second" clock 'tick' per se.
I trust in future you will not be so easily swayed to just 'go along' with every facile 'one liner' posted by people who sometimes don't appreciate the subtle non-sequiturs in what they are repeating from some pop-science/facile 'treatment' they just accepted non-critically like you have just done? Take care to think everything through for yourself, always!...and never just accept glib but misleading 'explanations' like that you quoted originally. Cheers, paddo, everyone! Bye.
PS: paddoboy, Lakon...guys, you're Aussies for crying out loud. Cool it with your personal exchanges and leave the nasty stuff to the trolls, hey? Shake hands and forget the misunderstandings between you and start afresh. Ok? Cheers, Aussies!
Agreed young fella!! Not so much zeal though, as more trying to establish the concept in as simple terms as possible...afterall, I'm only a loveable layman! :}
Never the less, though, appreciate the ""pick-up.
PS: paddoboy, Lakon...guys, you're Aussies for crying out loud. Cool it with your personal exchanges and leave the nasty stuff to the trolls, hey? Shake hands and forget the misunderstandings between you and start afresh. Ok? Cheers, Aussies!
Agreed again......From here on, I'll just refute the pseudoscientific rubbish as I recognise it.Promise!!!
You are a crazy person.
..and I didn't, never do, read any of your gibberish, but I note another member picked you up on your facile efforts.
Crazy person - failed scientist .. too much time on his hands.