Originally posted by @lemon-limeDo you ever observe GPS in real life?
[b]Well, any still picture assumes it somehow got to this positions.
Although your assumption is correct, it is based on what you already know and observe in your everyday life. But the still shot itself is only showing stuff separated by space.
You could also observe pieces of dry macaroni, pebbles and bottle caps glued onto poster board. But th ...[text shortened]... r minds 'eye'? You know those objects are moving, but 'knowing' is not the same thing as seeing.[/b]
How well do you think it would work without correcting for time dilation effects?
1 edit
Originally posted by @fabianfnas... perhaps it is better if you don't succeed.
...if?
( don't succeed at what? )
Originally posted by @fabianfnasWhy did you stop reading after the first paragraph? Still pictures with before and after pics are called 'motion pictures'. You know, movies, the cinema, cinema motion pictures, etc.
A still picture has a before and an after. A still universe (without the temporal dimension) has not a before and an after. Therefore an universe without time is still and stuck in the t=0 state. I have problem to picture it otherwise.
How our universe can start our time from scratch I cannot explain in any way. I can speculate but that wouldn't be science.
Now imagine you are watching a motion picture. You are now able to see evidence of both time and gravity.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadThere should be a shut off valve on the back of your head. Find the knob and twist until the flowing stops... and then wait until your head explodes.
The ego is overflowing.
( problem solved )
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYou are talking to the wrong person.
There should be a shut off valve on the back of your head. Find the knob and twist until the flowing stops... and then wait until your head explodes.
( problem solved )
Originally posted by @twhiteheadYes, you are often wrong... but this doesn't mean you are a wrong person.
You are talking to the wrong person.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYes, of course, and love, and hate, and taste, and color, and smell, and..., and... without end.
Why did you stop reading after the first paragraph? Still pictures with before and after pics are called 'motion pictures'. You know, movies, the cinema, cinema motion pictures, etc.
[b]Now imagine you are watching a motion picture. You are now able to see evidence of both time and gravity.[/b]
When I see a science fiction film I see evidence of extraterrestrial beings. When I see religious films I see evidence of a god. When I see a film about (whatever) I see evidence of (whatever).
So what's your point? Do you think this analogy is valuable?
Why I don't answer every word you use, perhaps it's because I don't want to go from the topic in hand.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fabianfnasI don't want to go from the topic in hand
Yes, of course, and love, and hate, and taste, and color, and smell, and..., and... without end.
When I see a science fiction film I see evidence of extraterrestrial beings. When I see religious films I see evidence of a god. When I see a film about (whatever) I see evidence of (whatever).
So what's your point? Do you think this analogy is valuabl ...[text shortened]... don't answer every word you use, perhaps it's because I don't want to go from the topic in hand.
Okay. I'll try to not lead you astray from the topic at hand.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThank you.
[b]I don't want to go from the topic in hand
Okay. I'll try to not lead you astray from the topic at hand.[/b]
This line of reasoning - what does it lead us to? What is the bottom line? What is your conclusion?
(Believe me, I enjoy our little debate! You know why? We debate it without insults! 🙂 )
Originally posted by @fabianfnasHilarious given your own penchant for throwing insults and running away when you think you are loosing a debate.
(Believe me, I enjoy our little debate! You know why? We debate it without insults! 🙂 )
Originally posted by @twhiteheadwhen you think you are loosing a debate.
Hilarious given your own penchant for throwing insults and running away when you think you are loosing a debate.
Let loose the debates!
4 edits
Originally posted by @fabianfnasBelieve me, I enjoy our little debate!
Thank you.
This line of reasoning - what does it lead us to? What is the bottom line? What is your conclusion?
(Believe me, I enjoy our little debate! You know why? We debate it without insults! 🙂 )
So do I.
You know why?
No, but I have a theory.
We debate it without insults!
( theory confirmed )
This line of reasoning - what does it lead us to? What is the bottom line? What is your conclusion?
Wo, slow down there Chief! You move too fast for me.
Give an old man (me) time to catch up, okay?
First, the line of reasoning...
(If you understand the reasoning, I suspect the rest of it will become self evident.)
Imagine the person looking at the still shot photo is Detective Columbo. The photo is a still shot of a crime scene. He examines the photo and gleans whatever evidence he can from it, which isn't much but he needs to start somewhere. Then he examines a security camera (motion picture) tape of that same crime scene, gleans a bit more evidence from that and compares it to the still shot photo.
As he's doing this he is also entertaining theories about what he is seeing, but he doesn't let his ruminations interfere with his observations. He eventually allows himself to come to a conclusion, but not before turning over every stone and possible explanation he can think of to explain every piece of evidence (and discrepancy) he has observed...
( I need to stop here for another cup of coffee and some breakfast )
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIn case you're wondering, the answer is "yes". There is a point to all this. But simply expressing the point without anything leading up to it would be... pointless.
[b]Believe me, I enjoy our little debate!
So do I.
You know why?
No, but I have a theory.
We debate it without insults!
( theory confirmed )
This line of reasoning - what does it lead us to? What is the bottom line? What is your conclusion?
Wo, slow down there Chief! You move too fast for me.
Give an old man ...[text shortened]... cy) he has observed...
( I need to stop here for another cup of coffee and some breakfast )[/b]
So I'll continue. If five people are employing the same methodology to the same evidence, and they all come up with five different conclusions, does this mean only one can be right (or all five are wrong)?
What other conclusion (or theory) can we offer for explaining this?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeWe need to go best out of seven?
In case you're wondering, the answer is "yes". There [b]is a point to all this. But simply expressing the point without anything leading up to it would be... pointless.
So I'll continue. If five people are employing the same methodology to the same evidence, and they all come up with five different conclusions, does this mean only one can be right (or all five are wrong)?
What other conclusion (or theory) can we offer for explaining this?[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhI need to expand on the idea of five people coming to five different conclusions.
We need to go best out of seven?
Let's say those five are all reputable scientists, equal in ability, knowledge, credentials, etc. All of them observing the same phenomenon and looking over the same evidence. And equally capable of finding the answer. There are not several true answers, there is only one, and there is enough evidence for any one of them to discover the truth about what they have observed.
So how do we account for each coming to a different conclusion?