Originally posted by sonhouseI keep asking you why you reason that it is time that is shifting and
We both gave you examples of how time can stretch having nothing to do with instruments but with velocities and mass. I told you about the particles that make it to earth in spite of the fact that at lower velocities they explode into something else but at close to the speed of light their own time frame slows down enough that it makes it to the ground. I d ...[text shortened]...
Can you answer that simple question without qualification? Yes or no? Can you tell me that?
not what is going through these stresses, you could just be looking at
something else change in a predictable manner such as mass and
energy and not time?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you are anti-science. And I will continute to do so until you show otherwise. I don't see it is an insult, I see it as a fact.
No, here we go again sort of implies you get involved in these
discussions which isn’t really the case, typically you only insult
and do not do much else. Others actually have thoughts and
points to introduce you hardly ever do anything other than insult
or attempt to marginalize people you disagree with.
Just more of the same.
Kelly
With due respect, KJ, do you believe in 'time'?
(I've asked you before, and I will ask you again, if needed...)
Originally posted by KellyJayI already gave you my version of what time is, I showed three examples having nothing to do with instrumentation, the formulas all work to an extraordinary degree, if it was some other effect, the formulas would all be off, they aren't, it is time itself that varies. Let me ask you this: What is it you object to in this declaration? You already stated much earlier in your theory of the earth being only 10,000 years old, you said, what if time was different back then, and said maybe those 6 days were really a billion years apiece. You are the one who said that way back in the posts. But now you argue just the opposite. So which is it? And you didn't answer my question about the moon landing. Do you think men walked on the moon or is it a big hoax? Just a simple yes or no will do.
I keep asking you why you reason that it is time that is shifting and
not what is going through these stresses, you could just be looking at
something else change in a predictable manner such as mass and
energy and not time?
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseI bet that he doesn't going to answer any of your questions, sonhouse, but I would be happy if he did.
I already gave you my version of what time is, I showed three examples having nothing to do with instrumentation, the formulas all work to an extraordinary degree, if it was some other effect, the formulas would all be off, they aren't, it is time itself that varies. Let me ask you this: What is it you object to in this declaration? You already stated much ...[text shortened]... ing. Do you think men walked on the moon or is it a big hoax? Just a simple yes or no will do.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay….You do not have any idea what time is so how can you debate if is
You have nothing to discuss than.
You do not have any idea what time is so how can you debate if is
effected by a stress or not?
Mercury's wobble and someone's measuring device could be apples
and oranges. Nothing has be completely demolished, you repeating
your stance isn't demolishing anything.
Kelly
effected by a STRESS or not? .… (my emphasis)
I don’t!
I don’t “debate the effects of stress on time” because I do not know what that assertion even means because I do not know what you are talking about when you use the word “STRESS ” in this context. It is YOU that is “debating the effects of “stress” (or the lack of it I presume) on time” (whatever that is supposed to mean) and NOT me because I don’t use nor even think in turns of vague words such as “stress” when talking about time.
-when have I ever said anything vague like “time is effected by stress” ?
But whatever you mean by “STRESS ” in your above statement here, obviously IF that is statement is ‘true’ (and it is a big IF because I am not even sure it makes any sense!) then that must work both ways I.e. since YOU also cannot define time then, according to your own logic here, YOU ALSO cannot debate whether time is effected by “stress” (whatever that is supposed to mean). Thus, YOU, according to your own logic here, cannot claim that “it is not TIME that is being altered but something in the measuring instruments” because YOU yourself cannot define time because (using your own logic here: ) how do you know what you are talking about when you say things like “TIME is not effected” when you cannot define “TIME”?
Further more, according to your own logic here, since some of the top physicists that know a lot more than we do CAN define time, then, presumably they CAN debate if time is effected (according to you) -and they say that time dilation effects are real so how can you argue against them?
..Mercury's wobble and someone's measuring device could be apples
and oranges. ..…
What does that mean? -I have no idea.
Originally posted by sonhouseyes
I already gave you my version of what time is, I showed three examples having nothing to do with instrumentation, the formulas all work to an extraordinary degree, if it was some other effect, the formulas would all be off, they aren't, it is time itself that varies. Let me ask you this: What is it you object to in this declaration? You already stated much ...[text shortened]... ing. Do you think men walked on the moon or is it a big hoax? Just a simple yes or no will do.
Originally posted by KellyJayJust wondered about that, wasn't sure of how far out in the fringe you really were. But you did mention the idea of time flowing differently with reference to the creation story but now you use the opposite tact against science in general it seems. So you change your tactics depending on the situation it seems. I think you figure it's just a game, how far can you jerk our chain till we figure out you are just playing a game.
yes
Originally posted by sonhouse"Do you think men walked on the moon or is it a big hoax? Just a simple yes or no will do."
Just wondered about that, wasn't sure of how far out in the fringe you really were. But you did mention the idea of time flowing differently with reference to the creation story but now you use the opposite tact against science in general it seems. So you change your tactics depending on the situation it seems. I think you figure it's just a game, how far can you jerk our chain till we figure out you are just playing a game.
I guess a simple yes didn't really do?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI was talking about your changing tactics on the idea of time flowing at different rates, I saw your answer about the moonwalk, thats all I wanted to know about that. Why do you say time doesn't flow any different for any reason now but before you brought up the idea that during what you think of as creation, time may have flowed at a different rate, so why the dichotomy of arguments then?
"Do you think men walked on the moon or is it a big hoax? Just a simple yes or no will do."
I guess a simple yes didn't really do?
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseI never said time flowed at a different rate during creation.
I was talking about your changing tactics on the idea of time flowing at different rates, I saw your answer about the moonwalk, thats all I wanted to know about that. Why do you say time doesn't flow any different for any reason now but before you brought up the idea that during what you think of as creation, time may have flowed at a different rate, so why the dichotomy of arguments then?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI guess the biggest problem with the moon landing hoax theory is that it would be so hard to successfully pull it off that it would actually be easier to do it for real!
yes
There would have to be a huge number of people in on this conspiracy and they ALL must keep their mouths shut.
I believe that a large crowd of spectators viewed the actual takeoff of the huge rocket heading to the moon with their own eyes -that would have to be an extremely expensive fireworks display to send a bunch of people to nowhere -might as well spend that money on doing it for real.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou ever watch the show "Myth busters" they did a show on all the
I guess the biggest problem with the moon landing hoax theory is that it would be so hard to successfully pull it off that it would actually be easier to do it for real!
There would have to be a huge number of people in on this conspiracy and they ALL must keep their mouths shut.
I believe that a large crowd of spectators viewed the actual takeof ...[text shortened]... splay to send a bunch of people to nowhere -might as well spend that money on doing it for real.
complaints about the moon landing, it was quite good.
Kelly
About the Moon Landing Hoax. Of course it is a hoax. It's easy as a cake to prove that the moon stones are fakes. Anyone having a mass-spectroscopy can do it. It is virtually impossible to make a fake moon stone with the isotope compositiona at all, especially when you don't know the composition of the real moon stones.
So if you have reference moon stone then you perhaps can make a fake that can fool amateurs (but not experts), but where would you find this reference moon stones? From moon of course. Who went there to collect them? The russians? No, the Apollo crew, of course.
Originally posted by FabianFnasmyth buster moon landing
About the Moon Landing Hoax. Of course it is a hoax. It's easy as a cake to prove that the moon stones are fakes. Anyone having a mass-spectroscopy can do it. It is virtually impossible to make a fake moon stone with the isotope compositiona at all, especially when you don't know the composition of the real moon stones.
So if you have reference moon st ...[text shortened]... moon of course. Who went there to collect them? The russians? No, the Apollo crew, of course.
google that
Kelly