Can you scientifically prove this statement? You are saying that everything that exists is something which can be measured, tested, and researched. You can appeal to probability all you want to, but in the end your argument is self-supportive.
What about miracals?
- Thread starter JesusRocksMySocks
- Start date
Can you scientifically prove this statement? You are saying that everything that exists is something which can be measured, tested, and researched. You can appeal to probability all you want to, but in the end your argument is self-supportive.
Re: Re: miracles
Anyone care to comment on this issue?
Or, has everyone taken on Q's methods and avoid what they can't explain.
Has anyone ever heard of 'The miracle man of Brazil?'
http://www.triadpublishers.com/Pmiracle.html
He's pretty hard to discount. Numerous american Doctors have studied him personally, and they've all been amazed at his results.
Anyone care to comment on this issue?
Or, has everyone taken on Q's methods and avoid what they can't explain.
Has anyone ever heard of 'The miracle man of Brazil?'
http://www.triadpublishers.com/Pmiracle.html
He's pretty hard to discount. Numerous american Doctors have studied him personally, and they've all been amazed at his results.
Hmm, I must say this "Miracle Man" is pretty interesting but unfortunetly I don't find any testimonies about him. Of course there were testimonies about his book but that just leads back to money. Why is someone who's so close to god and can make miracles need to sell books about his practice for money? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. Unless of course this is just another scam. Now i'm open minded and will admit when im wrong when it's proven to me, but again, there is no proof about his work other than the book he read. Other than mentioning it just now i've never heard of him. Never seen any news croverage, never read about him on the internet, nor have I seen him on tv. You would think that someone who can heal people of any and every ailment would get some attention. yet i haven't seen to much on him. Why is this?
It can simply be another scam. Have u been healed by him? I don't think you have. You're gullible and to quick to be impressed. Think for a second. Think about how many people have run scams and how long they've lasted before they were proven false. In the end everything comes down to money as usual, and like i've said countless times, people would do anything for some green.+
It can simply be another scam. Have u been healed by him? I don't think you have. You're gullible and to quick to be impressed. Think for a second. Think about how many people have run scams and how long they've lasted before they were proven false. In the end everything comes down to money as usual, and like i've said countless times, people would do anything for some green.+
What???
First of all, it isn't HIS BOOK!
It was written by an another Doctor who witnessed his work.
This man WON'T even accept payment for his work. How about that Q?
So, because he hasn't made the filtered American media, he must be a hoax?
You don't have a clue as to what you're saying.
Gravity can still not be scientifically explained!
Science does not cover art, poetry, humor, psychology, music, love, religion, economics, politics, ...should I go on?
Rob
This man WON'T even accept payment for his work. How about that Q?
Votor is correct – you are gullible and easily impressed.
‘John of God’, as he humbly calls himself is a charlatan and a fraud. Before and after X-ray pics sent to doctors revealed this as the before pics were of a cancer in the lungs and the after pics were of a healthy liver.
It was also shown that those who provided so-called testimonials were paid off.
See James Randi.
This man WON'T even accept payment for his work. How about that Q?
Votor is correct – you are gullible and easily impressed.
‘John of God’, as he humbly calls himself is a charlatan and a fraud. Before and after X-ray pics sent to doctors revealed this as the before pics were of a cancer in the lungs and the after pics were of a healthy liver.
It was also shown that those who provided so-called testimonials were paid off.
See James Randi.
Does GR explain what gravity IS, or what it DOES?
Also, I did not think GR had been proven even remotely true; apart from anything else I seem to recall that it doesn't provide an adequate description of 1) what happens to relativistic effects when things speed up and slow down with respect to one another, or 2) how there can be two different kinds of time. I also thought that GR explained gravity as an effect of the curvature of space...
Also, I did not think GR had been proven even remotely true; apart from anything else I seem to recall that it doesn't provide an adequate description of 1) what happens to relativistic effects when things speed up and slow down with respect to one another, or 2) how there can be two different kinds of time. I also thought that GR explained gravity as an effect of the curvature of space...
1) what happens to relativistic effects when things speed up and slow down with respect to one another
That is question that can be answered with Special Relativity. Clocks appear to slow down when observing them moving at relativistic speeds from a stationary frame of reference.
how there can be two different kinds of time
Time is not absolute and is relative to the observer.
I also thought that GR explained gravity as an effect of the curvature of space...
It does, however Special Relativity is a subset of GR.
That is question that can be answered with Special Relativity. Clocks appear to slow down when observing them moving at relativistic speeds from a stationary frame of reference.
how there can be two different kinds of time
Time is not absolute and is relative to the observer.
I also thought that GR explained gravity as an effect of the curvature of space...
It does, however Special Relativity is a subset of GR.
Moving, not accelerating; I'd understood that SR did not predict very well in situations where one or both of the observers was accelerating with respect to the other one.
Yes, time in GR is a function of the propagation of light. Then there is the time that governs the propagation of light... two kinds of time, no?
Moving, not accelerating; I'd understood that SR did not predict very well in situations where one or both of the observers was accelerating with respect to the other one.
Correct.
Yes, time in GR is a function of the propagation of light. Then there is the time that governs the propagation of light... two kinds of time, no?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here when you make a connection between time and light? Assuming there are two kinds of time would also assume an absolute time.
You can measure time with a variety of methods, pendulum, etc. in which your measurements are of some standard measure in your frame of reference. By accelerating or moving at high velocities, an outside observer stationary relative to you will observe your clock ticking slower, the faster the velocity or the greater the acceleration, the slower the clock will appear to tick. However under these conditions, to you, your clock appears to tick normally and does not appear to slow.
Correct.
Yes, time in GR is a function of the propagation of light. Then there is the time that governs the propagation of light... two kinds of time, no?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here when you make a connection between time and light? Assuming there are two kinds of time would also assume an absolute time.
You can measure time with a variety of methods, pendulum, etc. in which your measurements are of some standard measure in your frame of reference. By accelerating or moving at high velocities, an outside observer stationary relative to you will observe your clock ticking slower, the faster the velocity or the greater the acceleration, the slower the clock will appear to tick. However under these conditions, to you, your clock appears to tick normally and does not appear to slow.
Events propagate at the speed of light - this is what causes time dilation, if I understand correctly... I'll draw an example from an old class of mine.
Let's say you are flying along in outer space, at some extremely high speed, .99(c) or something like that. There is a wall beside you, which is very long, such that you can fly beside it for a very long time. You use a photon emitter to emit single photons at the wall, and they bounce back and strike a photosensor that detects their arrival. You have seperated yourself from the wall by one light second of distance, so the photon you emit takes two seconds to return to the photosensor, one second there, one second back.
So it looks like this:
_____________
|
->
Where the arrow is you, traveling at .99(c) to the right relative to the wall, the horizontal line is the wall, and the vertical line is the path of the photon. The photon is traveling 2 light seconds worth of distance every time.
Now let's look at you from the standpoint of the wall.
_____________
/\
/ \
/ \
Let's say you are flying along in outer space, at some extremely high speed, .99(c) or something like that. There is a wall beside you, which is very long, such that you can fly beside it for a very long time. You use a photon emitter to emit single photons at the wall, and they bounce back and strike a photosensor that detects their arrival. You have seperated yourself from the wall by one light second of distance, so the photon you emit takes two seconds to return to the photosensor, one second there, one second back.
So it looks like this:
_____________
|
->
Where the arrow is you, traveling at .99(c) to the right relative to the wall, the horizontal line is the wall, and the vertical line is the path of the photon. The photon is traveling 2 light seconds worth of distance every time.
Now let's look at you from the standpoint of the wall.
_____________
/\
/ \
/ \
Events propagate at the speed of light - this is what causes time dilation, if I understand correctly... I'll draw an example from an old class of mine.
Let's say you are flying along in outer space, at some extremely high speed, .99(c) or something like that. There is a wall beside you, which is very long, such that you can fly beside it for a very long time. You use a photon emitter to emit single photons at the wall, and they bounce back and strike a photosensor that detects their arrival. You have seperated yourself from the wall by one light second of distance, so the photon you emit takes two seconds to return to the photosensor, one second there, one second back.
So it looks like this:
_____________
|
|
|
->
Where the arrow is you, traveling at .99(c) to the right relative to the wall, the horizontal line is the wall, and the vertical line is the path of the photon. The photon is traveling 2 light seconds worth of distance every time.
Now let's look at you from the standpoint of the wall.
_____________
/\
/ \
/ \
-> ->
Since an observer from the wall's frame of reference sees you as moving at .99(c), it also sees the photon as taking an angled path towards the wall. My slashes here aren't 45 degrees, so just imagine that they are, since your speed is close enough to the speed of light that the photon you emit is moving in the same direction as you almost as fast as it's moving towards/away from the wall.
From the wall's frame of reference, the photon traverses a longer path and therefore takes longer to get where it is going - instead of 2 light seconds of distance, it traverses 2*(root 2) = root 8 = ~2.8 light seconds. Hence, time seems to go more slowly for you than for the wall, from the wall's point of view - no event can travel faster than light.
In this way, time is a function of the propagation of light in GR.
THEN, we have the propagation of light. If light has a speed, it must be governed by a time of its own, above and beyond the time which it governs. Hence, there are two kinds of time.
Let's say you are flying along in outer space, at some extremely high speed, .99(c) or something like that. There is a wall beside you, which is very long, such that you can fly beside it for a very long time. You use a photon emitter to emit single photons at the wall, and they bounce back and strike a photosensor that detects their arrival. You have seperated yourself from the wall by one light second of distance, so the photon you emit takes two seconds to return to the photosensor, one second there, one second back.
So it looks like this:
_____________
|
|
|
->
Where the arrow is you, traveling at .99(c) to the right relative to the wall, the horizontal line is the wall, and the vertical line is the path of the photon. The photon is traveling 2 light seconds worth of distance every time.
Now let's look at you from the standpoint of the wall.
_____________
/\
/ \
/ \
-> ->
Since an observer from the wall's frame of reference sees you as moving at .99(c), it also sees the photon as taking an angled path towards the wall. My slashes here aren't 45 degrees, so just imagine that they are, since your speed is close enough to the speed of light that the photon you emit is moving in the same direction as you almost as fast as it's moving towards/away from the wall.
From the wall's frame of reference, the photon traverses a longer path and therefore takes longer to get where it is going - instead of 2 light seconds of distance, it traverses 2*(root 2) = root 8 = ~2.8 light seconds. Hence, time seems to go more slowly for you than for the wall, from the wall's point of view - no event can travel faster than light.
In this way, time is a function of the propagation of light in GR.
THEN, we have the propagation of light. If light has a speed, it must be governed by a time of its own, above and beyond the time which it governs. Hence, there are two kinds of time.
Dangit, my slashes came out unspaced. I hope that the diagrams are good enough to get my point across.
The diagrams are OK and understandable.
In this way, time is a function of the propagation of light in GR.
All you’ve managed to somewhat describe is the same event from different reference frames. You can transform the results from one frame to another. I noticed you tried to do that but are using the incorrect formula. The frame you choose to be the stationary frame is considered the ‘Proper’ time.
If light has a speed, it must be governed by a time of its own
At the speed of light, time stops.
Again, you’re trying to assert an absolute time and that is incorrect – time is relative to the observer.
In this way, time is a function of the propagation of light in GR.
All you’ve managed to somewhat describe is the same event from different reference frames. You can transform the results from one frame to another. I noticed you tried to do that but are using the incorrect formula. The frame you choose to be the stationary frame is considered the ‘Proper’ time.
If light has a speed, it must be governed by a time of its own
At the speed of light, time stops.
Again, you’re trying to assert an absolute time and that is incorrect – time is relative to the observer.
Then what time governs the propagation of light? If there was no such one, then it wouldn't have a speed. And you can't say that time stops at the speed of light, because that's just a corollary of the presupposition that events can only propagate at the speed of light - that doesn't explain how light propagates.
(I am not using time dilation formulas as I don't know 'em; I'm only demonstrating the difference in the distance that the light travels between the two frames.)
Since the speed of light is still an absolute limit in GR and it is always the same (in the same medium) there is by definition a CONSTANT speed at which it propagates, out of which falls the propagation of events. So, some frame-independent time defines the propagation of light, and the propagation of light governs the frame-dependent propagation of events. Time need not be absolute, but the travel of the photons is still governed by a non-frame-dependent time.
(I am not using time dilation formulas as I don't know 'em; I'm only demonstrating the difference in the distance that the light travels between the two frames.)
Since the speed of light is still an absolute limit in GR and it is always the same (in the same medium) there is by definition a CONSTANT speed at which it propagates, out of which falls the propagation of events. So, some frame-independent time defines the propagation of light, and the propagation of light governs the frame-dependent propagation of events. Time need not be absolute, but the travel of the photons is still governed by a non-frame-dependent time.