Originally posted by sonhousePlease show KellyJay more respect sonhouse. He is after all the man that almost singlehandedly demolished Darwinism and has now moved on and is dealing with the errors of those other notorious simpletons (physicists). I know on campuses around the world, the chemists are quaking in their boots for the "belief or fact" man to come along and run the rule over their sorry state of affairs. Libeg condensers my arse.
What do you think is happening in Black Holes? Do you think time is going the same rate as here on Earth?
It sounds to me like you just don't want modern science to be right about anything, preferring to have contrary opinions which are totally unfounded except in your own mind. You are trying to invent your own universe which is at odds with the one in w ...[text shortened]... or, you just did that experiment 100 times and all the clocks agree, are they ALL bonkers now?
In 2015 I am hoping he will publish a book to coincide with the centenary of the publication of general relativity and set the record straight for once and for all. Seriously, how hard can this stuff really be? He is right as well that scientists generally are known to be very lazy people and that bloody Curie woman barely did a hard days work at all in the lab sifting through pitchblende.
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusDarwinism still stands firm as a scientific theory.
Please show KellyJay more respect sonhouse. He is after all the man that almost singlehandedly demolished Darwinism and has now moved on and is dealing with the errors of those other notorious simpletons (physicists). I know on campuses around the world, the chemists are quaking in their boots for the "belief or fact" man to come along and run the r ...[text shortened]... bloody Curie woman barely did a hard days work at all in the lab sifting through pitchblende.
Relativity still stands firm with time dilation and all.
Science work as it always does.
I think KellyJay has much to learn and he's getting free lessons in the subject here and now. No disrespect is shown, no namecalling, no flaming. Everything is in order. I think the debate is showing respect in both directions. No meaning to intervene.
If you want to support KellyJay, please do, but KellyJay enjoys his time here.
Originally posted by FabianFnasOops, you donna understand sarcasm whena you see it🙂
Darwinism still stands firm as a scientific theory.
Relativity still stands firm with time dilation and all.
Science work as it always does.
I think KellyJay has much to learn and he's getting free lessons in the subject here and now. No disrespect is shown, no namecalling, no flaming. Everything is in order. I think the debate is showing respect in ...[text shortened]... to intervene.
If you want to support KellyJay, please do, but KellyJay enjoys his time here.
Originally posted by sonhouseHe already accepts that clocks run differently in different gravity fields and at different speeds. He is suggesting however that they are being affected by gravity in some other way than actual time being slowed down or speeded up. I think it is a perfectly reasonable concern especially from someone who is not a physicist.
What do you do if you do that with a hundred different atomic clocks all the same design and they all do the same thing, the clocks tick one way on the 80th floor and a different way on the first floor, you just did that experiment 100 times and all the clocks agree, are they ALL bonkers now?
It is already a known fact that a pendulum clock will run at a different speed on the top of an 80 story building and this has nothing to do with relativity and is a direct result of the different gravity.
We know why it happens to pendulums.
However, for atomic clocks, and other timing mechanisms that work in a variety of different ways, the best explanation so far is relativity, which not only explains the various changes to their measurements in different situations, but also explains a whole host of other phenomena which would also have to be explained by some alternative theory should it turn out that relativity was incorrect.
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockOld man. As old as dirt!
How old is planet Earth?
Seriously, I don't know. Did someone say four billion years ?
I also wonder if the universe is 15 billion years old if that limits how many light years away the Hubble Telescope can see.
I heard from a source that we can see further away then the theorized age of the universe.
Yes or No?
Originally posted by jaywillShort answer, no. The 'universe' and there is now question as to whether it is 'THE' universe, seems to clock in at 13.75 billion years old. However, during the big bang era, the universe (if theory is indeed to be believed) expanded MUCH MUCH faster than c so it pumped up really really fast, and is supposed to still be expanding about 2 or 3 times the speed of light, the universe can do that since it is not matter moving that fast but the sub-pinnings of matter which just shoves matter along, so the actual size of our universe is more like 40 or 50 billion light years across and the hubble can never see more than back to the beginning, or that aforementioned 13 odd billion light years. We are very close to that number already, like 13.2 billion light years or thereabouts.
Old man. As old as dirt!
Seriously, I don't know. Did someone say four billion years ?
I also wonder if the universe is 15 billion years old if that limits how many light years away the Hubble Telescope can see.
I heard from a source that we can see further away then the theorized age of the universe.
Yes or No?
The question cosmologists want to answer is if there is evidence our universe is literally bumping into other universes impinging on our space, in a 5th dimensional sense.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHere are examples of the things I have been saying on the topic.
Yes. Are you able to answer questions?
23 May
"I do not see things popping out of our time line, out of the moments we share
together; therefore, I have doubts about the "concrete theory". Think of it like
a radio signal, you tune in you hear the station, and only that station that is
dialed into the frequency you’re listening to. With time if you and I are here sharing
the same moment of time we see each other, where we don't see each other is
when we were in the same room, but during different time frames. The same
moment for me is "The now", it is time as share there is no other outside of the
past or future and those are not places we can see into outside of recording of the
past events.
Kelly
23 May
Did the ship disappear when it went forward or backward in time? In order for me
to see the events around me I have to be there in the time they take place, or
see some recording of the events; where I'm sitting now people have shared this
spot in different times, are they visable to me now, how about those that are
going to share this space in the future can I see them now? My point is if people
and those clocks really left our time (the moment we share) they would have left our
space too, because they would not be sharing the same moment with the rest of
us. If I'm watching a plane or something else experience your shift in time, when
my time isn't shifting, I'd say it isn't time shifting but something else.
Kelly
23 May
With respect to the train I've already given you my thoughts, which is to say that
our ability to measure time has limitations. If our clocks due to some stress like
gravity causes them to speed up or slow down when they are subjected to it, than
our views about time are off the mark. It would not be a time dilation on the train
in that time went through some change, just our ability to keep time. If we always
shared the same moment everywhere it would not be time changing, just our
ability to keep time would be off.
23 May
If we move in and out of the same time, then your time travel example would mean
that during that event, we would not be in the same time frame, one would be out
of sync with the rest, displaced as it were with the rest of the universe till it came
back to sync up.
Kelly
23 May
I'm talking about stopping all of the universe at the same time and if there are
things not in our time frame they would not be here. That has as much proof behind
it as you telling me nothing can move faster than the speed of light, we just do not
know.
If we do not know if something is true, simply saying that is all that is required
don't you think? I would say that everything is happening simultaneously, if we all
share the same moment in time, now can we always see two or more specific
events occur at the same time, more than likely no depending on the speeds.
You again are assuming quite a bit with your bullet train example, if all moments are
shared than you'd still have the same time frames taking place between the two
people and you'd only have traveled a great deal while making your move.
Kelly"
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseYes I think time remains the same, I don't see it as a force or property that can
What do you think is happening in Black Holes? Do you think time is going the same rate as here on Earth?
It sounds to me like you just don't want modern science to be right about anything, preferring to have contrary opinions which are totally unfounded except in your own mind. You are trying to invent your own universe which is at odds with the one in w or, you just did that experiment 100 times and all the clocks agree, are they ALL bonkers now?
be altered as I do the material world. If everything is sharing the same moments
then it doesn't matter under what conditions or events anything is going through
it is still sharing the same moments. Now that does not mean that there are not
effects that can hamper our abilities to measure time, but time remains the same
for all at all points.
I'm a big fan of modern science, but I don't have to buy into everything everyone
accepts as truth while doing so. The points I agree with are not topics of discussion
here for me, why bother? So you see a couple of things from me that I just don't
accept out of hand what you believe, big deal.
Kelly
Originally posted by jaywillPhysics from the Early Universe is riddled with uncertainties. For a time there were stars whose estimated ages were bigger than the age of the Universe.
I heard from a source that we can see further away then the theorized age of the universe.
Yes or No?
Best book I know about the difficulties of the study of the Universe: http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Hearts-Cosmos-Scientific-Universe/dp/0316648965
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWith respect to GPS, why change anything if it works?
What do you think is happening in Black Holes? Do you think time is going the same rate as here on Earth?
It sounds to me like you just don't want modern science to be right about anything, preferring to have contrary opinions which are totally unfounded except in your own mind. You are trying to invent your own universe which is at odds with the one in w or, you just did that experiment 100 times and all the clocks agree, are they ALL bonkers now?
It isn't a matter of what I want, it is a matter of what is really going on.
I'm not attempting to invent anything I just don't see time being altered as a
reality if all things share the same moments at the same time. Someone brought
up a movie film as an example of being able to speed up or slow things down, and
after thinking about that it is the perfect example for my thoughts on this, just not
the way they presented it.
If we all share the same moments, at the same time, at all times, then the universe
is like a movie film being run, you can see it all in the "now", things speed up or
slow down, they get hotter or colder, they live the die, during the film and all
events are in the film. If something is outside of the film it isn't part of the movie,
if something is at the beginning of the film or the end that is where they are, things
are not jumping around in the film going into and out of the past into the present
or future, they always remain where they were in the film.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThose were not answers. They were inappropriate responses. Let me show you what answers look like.
Here are examples of the things I have been saying on the topic.
23 May
"I do not see things popping out of our time line, out of the moments we share
together; therefore, I have doubts about the "concrete theory". Think of it like
a radio signal, you tune in you hear the station, and only that station that is
dialed into the frequency you’re list ople and you'd only have traveled a great deal while making your move.
Kelly"
Is time a constant? No.
Why isn't time a constant? Because a journey can take an hour, or a day, or a year...it depends. It's not constant, it's variable.
What do you think is happening in Black Holes? Some sort of super dense mass which causes funky modifications of the classical laws of physics which I don't understand. I don't think about the inside of Black Holes much.
Do you think time [in the black hole] is going the same rate as here on Earth? No.
Why not? Because I think I heard it somewhere, and I know relativity and large masses cause weird relativistic time modifications.
you just did that experiment 100 times and all the clocks agree, are they ALL bonkers now? No.
Seriously, how hard can this stuff really be? Nice little sarcastic joke. A serious answer is that it's impossible for Kelly to rewrite physics to fit his preconceptions.
How old is planet Earth? I don't know. I believe it's approximately whatever the consensus is among geologists, cosmologists etc.
Did someone say four billion years? I didn't notice anyone saying that, but I might have missed it.
I heard from a source that we can see further away then the theorized age of the universe. Yes or No? Assuming you're measuring distance in light years, yes.
Why? Because space is stretching over time; what took light 1 light year to cross way back in the early times of the universe might take light 2 or more light years now, because that distance has stretched.
Are you [ATY] able to answer questions? Yes.
Is KellyJay able to answer questions? Not from what I've seen. I'm sure he's capable because he seems to be a human being of normal intelligence or better, but I have no evidence of it.
Did the ship disappear when it went forward or backward in time? Your question assumes something that isn't true. I cannot answer a nonsensical question.
Why do you say this? Because no ship can go forward of back in time except the same way everything else does. When it goes forward in time the regular way (because everything goes forward in time) it does not disappear.
In order for me to see the events around me I have to be there in the time they take place, or see some recording of the events; where I'm sitting now people have shared this spot in different times, are they visable to me now, how about those that are going to share this space in the future can I see them now? Probably not, probably not, unless those people happen to be in your sight in the present.
If we do not know if something is true, simply saying that is all that is required
don't you think? Your question does not indicate who is doing the requiring, so it's difficult to answer. However for the requirements of scientists, no, that's not enough. Scientists require themselves and are required by their employers to try to figure our if it's true or not.
The points I agree with are not topics of discussion here for me, why bother? I don't know why you should bother, but you did bother when you made this thread. If you're bored of it then don't bother.
With respect to GPS, why change anything if it works? There is no reason to change the physics because it does work!
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe discussion up to this part has been about the rate of time, does it speed up
Those were not answers. They were inappropriate responses. Let me show you what answers look like.
Is time a constant? No.
Why isn't time a constant? Because a journey can take an hour, or a day, or a year...it depends. It's not constant, it's variable.
What do you think is happening in Black Holes? Some sort of super dense mass which caus ...[text shortened]... f it works? There is no reason to change the physics because it does work!
or slow down under different conditions. I think you and I should just stop, because
you are getting insulting and I guess you are unable to talk without attempting to
take the coversation and turn it personal.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're welcome to stop. I will correct you if I feel like it should you choose to not stop. If I don't feel like it I won't.
The discussion up to this part has been about the rate of time, does it speed up
or slow down under different conditions. I think you and I should just stop, because
you are getting insulting and I guess you are unable to talk without attempting to
take the coversation and turn it personal.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIsn't it correct to say you are a dissenter and that about covers it? The problem is you only dissent with no other argument than 'It doesn't work that way' (the scientific way).
The discussion up to this part has been about the rate of time, does it speed up
or slow down under different conditions. I think you and I should just stop, because
you are getting insulting and I guess you are unable to talk without attempting to
take the coversation and turn it personal.
Kelly