QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 6 2010, 09:54 PM)
It's worse than that.
nopEda is dishonest.
Watch how he changes his version of what he claims we are debating.
Still not sure I would call it dishonesty, for me it is rather moving the goal posts and bad debating, but you are right, when someone conducts themselves like this, there is no point in debating.
Thank you for the breakdown, it was very informative to see it laid out in one text.
nopEda is dishonest.
Watch how he changes his version of what he claims we are debating.
Still not sure I would call it dishonesty, for me it is rather moving the goal posts and bad debating, but you are right, when someone conducts themselves like this, there is no point in debating.
Thank you for the breakdown, it was very informative to see it laid out in one text.
For Petes sake, all you guys do is debate about rape in the bible or ducks. Here why dont you debate about raping ducks. Oh! And the sick little mallard baѕtards are necrophiliacs...eew 
Ducks Heartless Rapists or Evolutionary Geniuses
Homosexual Necrophilia in the Mallard Duck
Ducks Heartless Rapists or Evolutionary Geniuses
Homosexual Necrophilia in the Mallard Duck
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Aug 7 2010, 08:10 AM)
For Petes sake, all you guys do is debate about rape in the bible or ducks. Here why dont you debate about raping ducks. Oh! And the sick little mallard baѕtards are necrophiliacs...eew
Ducks Heartless Rapists or Evolutionary Geniuses
Homosexual Necrophilia in the Mallard Duck
I think I debate more than only rape in the bible and ducks, but nevertheless it is a fascinating article.
Even more fascinating, is that the author of the original paper on the subject (Kees Moeliker) received a special kind of nobel prize for his discovery and paper.
Moeliker wordpress
Ducks Heartless Rapists or Evolutionary Geniuses
Homosexual Necrophilia in the Mallard Duck
I think I debate more than only rape in the bible and ducks, but nevertheless it is a fascinating article.
Even more fascinating, is that the author of the original paper on the subject (Kees Moeliker) received a special kind of nobel prize for his discovery and paper.
Moeliker wordpress
QUOTE
Moeliker always has a keen eye for strange bird behaviour. In 1995 he was the first to witness a case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck. In 2003, his publication about this observation ['The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Aves: Anatidae)'] earned him the Ig Nobel biology prize, the award that honors research that first makes you laugh, then makes you think.
I tried to read all the posts, but did anyone address the questions (If time is credited with 'changing' something physical, where does it get its energy ?)
Or did anyone explain how the questions were wrong and pose the right ones ?
Of course on a Board merely concerned with scientific questions, one could hardly expect more than juvenile ridicule and animal necrophilia.
Subjects closer to the hearts of almost all its members.
[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for other thread. Just pointing this out so you can take your time composing your useful replies.]
Or did anyone explain how the questions were wrong and pose the right ones ?
Of course on a Board merely concerned with scientific questions, one could hardly expect more than juvenile ridicule and animal necrophilia.
Subjects closer to the hearts of almost all its members.
[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for other thread. Just pointing this out so you can take your time composing your useful replies.]
Literary necrophilia: an abnormal obsession with dead end topics.
Only 10 days?
Only 10 days?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 7 2010, 06:50 AM)
It is illogical, because in the first example, one guy at the park mentioned he saw a mallard diving and catching a fish, and in the second example, someone says humans in general can run a four minute mile.
I think you must live in a mud hut with no TV. The four minute mile was broken in 1954, although technically Roger Banister did not run it in exactly 4 minutes, but instead in 3 minutes 59.4 seconds, so it isn't really a four minute mile but rather a 3minute 59.4 second mile.
It is illogical but you are not criticizing my analogy?
I said I have never seen anyone run a four minute mile. I had not been born yet in 1954 so there was no way for me to see him run the four minute mile.
And I have not seen anyone else run it.
Someone Nopeda that he saw a mallard diving and catching a fish, someone told me he saw a man run a four minute mile. ( I read about Roger Bannister)
The difference is?
Nopeda's first post the subject was that next thing he knew we would tell him mallards can dive and catch fish.
I think you must live in a mud hut with no TV. The four minute mile was broken in 1954, although technically Roger Banister did not run it in exactly 4 minutes, but instead in 3 minutes 59.4 seconds, so it isn't really a four minute mile but rather a 3minute 59.4 second mile.
It is illogical but you are not criticizing my analogy?
I said I have never seen anyone run a four minute mile. I had not been born yet in 1954 so there was no way for me to see him run the four minute mile.
And I have not seen anyone else run it.
Someone Nopeda that he saw a mallard diving and catching a fish, someone told me he saw a man run a four minute mile. ( I read about Roger Bannister)
The difference is?
Nopeda's first post the subject was that next thing he knew we would tell him mallards can dive and catch fish.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2010, 12:57 AM)
It is illogical but you are not criticizing my analogy?
NoPeda said:
QUOTE
It is illogical but you are not criticizing my analogy?
I was criticising NoPeda's analogy to start off with, because it was illogical in the use of supporting his argument.NoPeda said:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is illogical but you are not criticizing my analogy? |
I was criticising NoPeda's analogy to start off with, because it was illogical in the use of supporting his argument.
NoPeda said:
I observe Mallards several times a day, three or four days of each week. How frequently do you observe them?
Buttershug replied:
Your analogy deals with first hand knowledge and observation.
NoPeda Replied
Your analogy deals with first hand knowledge and observation.
NoPeda Replied
A guy I was talking to said Mallards can dive and chase fish and I pointed out that they can't. He said he has seen them do it and I know he hasn't. That's how that one went. If you were watching some people at a public park using a track, and someone told you that humans can run a four minute mile, indicating humans on average, and that he has seen them do it you would probably feel the same way I do about diving Mallards. Maybe not though...maybe you would just accept what he said as truth and would now believe that most humans can run a mile in four minutes.
NoPeda's analogy deals with a generalisation that humans can run a 4 minute mile vs one guy that witnessed a duck diving and catching a fish.
The analogies are vastly different. I was criticising NoPeda's analogy not yours, however you deemed it neccesary to step in from the side and criticised me, stating it was your analogy. You are looking for confrontation where none existed.
Your analogy deals with first hand knowledge and observation.
Makes no real difference.
There are enough records of Roger Banister that it is more reliable than a first hand observation.
And even then both are first hand observations. One is passed on in person and one by records. Not a real significant detail for the analogy.
They are both still Can population A do activity B?
First you accuse me of living in a mud hut, then you go on about me not saying someone told me. So you assume I have knowledge of something then complain that I didn't say that I did.
You made an irrelevant difference so I reworded things to show it had no bearing.
You are as bad with the intangible as Nopeda and changing goal posts as much as he is.
He made a sloppy statement. He interpreted it one way. Everyone else interpreted it another. It has to be decided what exactly is talked about.
That no mallard can dive for fish or that in general they can not.
NoPeda said:
I observe Mallards several times a day, three or four days of each week. How frequently do you observe them?
Buttershug replied:
QUOTE
I observe humans every day.Can humans run a four minute mile?
The reason I ask is because the real answer is "that depends on exactly what you mean by the question."I've never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile. I would hard pressed to do a 4 minute mile on my bike on level ground.
The reason I ask is because the real answer is "that depends on exactly what you mean by the question."I've never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile. I would hard pressed to do a 4 minute mile on my bike on level ground.
Your analogy deals with first hand knowledge and observation.
NoPeda Replied
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I observe humans every day.Can humans run a four minute mile? The reason I ask is because the real answer is "that depends on exactly what you mean by the question."I've never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile. I would hard pressed to do a 4 minute mile on my bike on level ground. |
Your analogy deals with first hand knowledge and observation.
NoPeda Replied
A guy I was talking to said Mallards can dive and chase fish and I pointed out that they can't. He said he has seen them do it and I know he hasn't. That's how that one went. If you were watching some people at a public park using a track, and someone told you that humans can run a four minute mile, indicating humans on average, and that he has seen them do it you would probably feel the same way I do about diving Mallards. Maybe not though...maybe you would just accept what he said as truth and would now believe that most humans can run a mile in four minutes.
NoPeda's analogy deals with a generalisation that humans can run a 4 minute mile vs one guy that witnessed a duck diving and catching a fish.
The analogies are vastly different. I was criticising NoPeda's analogy not yours, however you deemed it neccesary to step in from the side and criticised me, stating it was your analogy. You are looking for confrontation where none existed.
QUOTE
I said I have never seen anyone run a four minute mile. I had not been born yet in 1954 so there was no way for me to see him run the four minute mile.
And I have not seen anyone else run it.
Your point being?And I have not seen anyone else run it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I said I have never seen anyone run a four minute mile. I had not been born yet in 1954 so there was no way for me to see him run the four minute mile. And I have not seen anyone else run it. |
Your point being?
Someone (told) Nopeda that he saw a mallard diving and catching a fish, someone told me he saw a man run a four minute mile. ( I read about Roger Bannister)The difference is?
Someone (told) Nopeda that he saw a mallard diving and catching a fish, someone told me he saw a man run a four minute mile. ( I read about Roger Bannister)The difference is?
The difference is you are either lying or being purposefully obtuse. Where did you EVER mention that "someone told me he saw a man run a four minute mile"? Please show me where you said this in case I missed it.
You are being purposefully deceitful, and your actions are irreprehensible. You truly are no different to NoPeda on that level. You are looking for a dispute where none existed, and in order to justify your attack, you now twist your writing/lie, to make it seem to fit your argument.
You aslo do not answer questions posed to you in posts just like NoPeda. You are quick to ask a question, but never to actually answer questions posed, especially when they challenge you too much.
You do not deserve debate, as you cannot conduct yourself in a logical and reasonable fashion.
You are being purposefully deceitful, and your actions are irreprehensible. You truly are no different to NoPeda on that level. You are looking for a dispute where none existed, and in order to justify your attack, you now twist your writing/lie, to make it seem to fit your argument.
You aslo do not answer questions posed to you in posts just like NoPeda. You are quick to ask a question, but never to actually answer questions posed, especially when they challenge you too much.
You do not deserve debate, as you cannot conduct yourself in a logical and reasonable fashion.
QUOTE
Nopeda's first post the subject was that next thing he knew we would tell him mallards can dive and catch fish.
You make no sense both gramatically or logically.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 8 2010, 10:48 AM)
Your analogy deals with first hand knowledge and observation.
Makes no real difference.
There are enough records of Roger Banister that it is more reliable than a first hand observation.
And even then both are first hand observations. One is passed on in person and one by records. Not a real significant detail for the analogy.
They are both still Can population A do activity B?
First you accuse me of living in a mud hut, then you go on about me not saying someone told me. So you assume I have knowledge of something then complain that I didn't say that I did.
You made an irrelevant difference so I reworded things to show it had no bearing.
You are as bad with the intangible as Nopeda and changing goal posts as much as he is.
He made a sloppy statement. He interpreted it one way. Everyone else interpreted it another. It has to be decided what exactly is talked about.
That no mallard can dive for fish or that in general they can not.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2010, 08:49 AM)
He made a sloppy statement. He interpreted it one way. Everyone else interpreted it another. It has to be decided what exactly is talked about.
That no mallard can dive for fish or that in general they can not.
Maybe you weren't following the debate that closely (don't blame you for that) but that issue was cleared up right at the start by several posters.
After his original assertion I pointed to a National Geographic article that said that the ducks rarely dived, but that means they can dive.
So then nopEda clarifies his position and was ADAMANT that ADULT mallard ducks CAN'T DIVE AT ALL:
You act like evidence has been provided that should make me believe Mallards can dive and chase fish, so please present whatever it is you think you're referring to.
Do you mean that not all mallards can can dive and catch fish?
Or that all mallards can not dive and catch fish?
The difference is of course the situation where some can and some can not.
Would you say that humans can run the four minute mile?
Now is an excellent time for you to support your suggestion that you people are not working against me or whatever, so try explaining using this example.
That no mallard can dive for fish or that in general they can not.
Maybe you weren't following the debate that closely (don't blame you for that) but that issue was cleared up right at the start by several posters.
After his original assertion I pointed to a National Geographic article that said that the ducks rarely dived, but that means they can dive.
So then nopEda clarifies his position and was ADAMANT that ADULT mallard ducks CAN'T DIVE AT ALL:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
That's because I'm around Mallard ducks a lot and know from personal experience around them that they can't dive and chase fish. They can't even dive down and grab a piece of bread that sinks beyond their reach. When they do "dive" they have to be moving as fast as they can and then sort of angle down using the momentum. I've never seen an adult do it or even attempt it, but I did see a duckling do it one time when it was being chased by a kayak. They can't dive and chase fish though, like I said.
Only when he had been provided ample evidence that Mallard ducks can indeed dive, stay under and maneuver underwater and catch fish does he try to claim that the fish in question was injured or dead and that the discussion was about what the normal behavior of the ducks is, but as the early posts show, that is NOT what was being discussed. Right from the beginning we said diving was not their normal behavior, only that they could do it.
Arthur
Only when he had been provided ample evidence that Mallard ducks can indeed dive, stay under and maneuver underwater and catch fish does he try to claim that the fish in question was injured or dead and that the discussion was about what the normal behavior of the ducks is, but as the early posts show, that is NOT what was being discussed. Right from the beginning we said diving was not their normal behavior, only that they could do it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 5 2010, 11:56 PM)
The fact is all the other posters on this forum can clearly see is that we have provided multiple references to Mallards ability to dive and to catch fish, but you still claim you are right even though proven wrong.
An adult admits when they are in error.
You need to GROW UP.
Arthur
For the first time last week I read something saying baby Mallards have been seen doing it once, and so far I've seen NO! examples of adults doing it. Not one.
I mean:
Keep trying though. You could find one any second now, and if you do please let me know.
An adult admits when they are in error.
You need to GROW UP.
Arthur
For the first time last week I read something saying baby Mallards have been seen doing it once, and so far I've seen NO! examples of adults doing it. Not one.
I mean:
Keep trying though. You could find one any second now, and if you do please let me know.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
so far I've seen NO! examples of adults doing it. Not one
That just proves once again that you are a liar.
Arthur
That just proves once again that you are a liar.
Arthur
"Please tell me how "you knew" he hadn't seen a mallard diving and catching a fish? Is this person attached permanantly to your side that you know everything about him.
Is it that you knew, or you suspected he was lying." - fredinjeddah
From my pov it was easy to tell, because I know Mallards can't dive and chase fish like diving birds can. He said that they can and he's seen them do it. If he knew the truth then he would have said so, BUT! that he has seen an unusual example as the people who wrote the articles did. Peoplewho know the truth would ackowledge it and go on to explain the interesting anomaly. But I guess you only can appreciate that if you do understand the truth and as long as you don't, you won't.
"From your postings, I suspect you believe many things to be a conspiracy and it seems in your world, that people are out to get you or belittle you or embarrass you.
I truly think you need some help. You are going to have a very difficult life if you continue with that attitude. To be fair, do people that you physically interact with seem to think you are irrational, or is it only members of this forum.
I have viewed a few of you posts on other forums, and clearly it is members on other forums who also think you are irrational/illogical. Please do not for a second think I am trying to do the same thing, I am not, I am merely trying to point out to you, that maybe you should do some self analysis?" - fredinjeddah
Well I've been called an idiot and stupid and countless other insulting things but no one has ever said anything good about me. Hmmm
maybe you're right. It is all me and all the people who insult me and lie to me etc are the good guys? The people who insult me for not understanding things they can't attempt to explain?And who dishonestly tell me there's a lot of evidence when there is none? And then insult me for not changing my pov based on the evidence that does not exist...maybe they are the good guys and I'm the bad guy? Please provide evidence of that, and/or explain why I should accept things that are not evidence and change my pov because of....nothing other than someone else's desire that I do. Help me see why I should do that other than as a copout attempt to become more popular. Or, if there is no reason to do it other than as a copout attempt to become more popular then explain why I should do that.
Is it that you knew, or you suspected he was lying." - fredinjeddah
From my pov it was easy to tell, because I know Mallards can't dive and chase fish like diving birds can. He said that they can and he's seen them do it. If he knew the truth then he would have said so, BUT! that he has seen an unusual example as the people who wrote the articles did. Peoplewho know the truth would ackowledge it and go on to explain the interesting anomaly. But I guess you only can appreciate that if you do understand the truth and as long as you don't, you won't.
"From your postings, I suspect you believe many things to be a conspiracy and it seems in your world, that people are out to get you or belittle you or embarrass you.
I truly think you need some help. You are going to have a very difficult life if you continue with that attitude. To be fair, do people that you physically interact with seem to think you are irrational, or is it only members of this forum.
I have viewed a few of you posts on other forums, and clearly it is members on other forums who also think you are irrational/illogical. Please do not for a second think I am trying to do the same thing, I am not, I am merely trying to point out to you, that maybe you should do some self analysis?" - fredinjeddah
Well I've been called an idiot and stupid and countless other insulting things but no one has ever said anything good about me. Hmmm
maybe you're right. It is all me and all the people who insult me and lie to me etc are the good guys? The people who insult me for not understanding things they can't attempt to explain?And who dishonestly tell me there's a lot of evidence when there is none? And then insult me for not changing my pov based on the evidence that does not exist...maybe they are the good guys and I'm the bad guy? Please provide evidence of that, and/or explain why I should accept things that are not evidence and change my pov because of....nothing other than someone else's desire that I do. Help me see why I should do that other than as a copout attempt to become more popular. Or, if there is no reason to do it other than as a copout attempt to become more popular then explain why I should do that.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 6 2010, 06:55 PM)
Here is another example of you moving the goal posts. The fish now have to be healthy.
. . .
I doubt any evidence would be sufficient for you, other than you seeing it for yourself. That is always the best evidence, but not neccesarily the only evidence.
The fish always would have to be healthy in order for it to count, but apparently you haven't been able to appreciate why yet so you almost certainly never will. If you can't appreciate a distinction between being able to "chase" a plant or mollusk and being able to chase a healthy fish, then how could anyone explain it so that you can? That is assuming you do understand that healthy fish are much faster and better able to maneuver than plants are, but you're still unable to appreciate why that fact is in any way siginficant. How could you learn to appreciate the significance of something so obvious and that you're already aware of, but you just can't recognise any significance to?
You act like evidence has been provided that should make me believe Mallards can dive and chase fish, so please present whatever it is you think you're referring to.
. . .
I doubt any evidence would be sufficient for you, other than you seeing it for yourself. That is always the best evidence, but not neccesarily the only evidence.
The fish always would have to be healthy in order for it to count, but apparently you haven't been able to appreciate why yet so you almost certainly never will. If you can't appreciate a distinction between being able to "chase" a plant or mollusk and being able to chase a healthy fish, then how could anyone explain it so that you can? That is assuming you do understand that healthy fish are much faster and better able to maneuver than plants are, but you're still unable to appreciate why that fact is in any way siginficant. How could you learn to appreciate the significance of something so obvious and that you're already aware of, but you just can't recognise any significance to?
You act like evidence has been provided that should make me believe Mallards can dive and chase fish, so please present whatever it is you think you're referring to.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 8 2010, 05:06 PM)
You act like evidence has been provided that should make me believe Mallards can dive and chase fish, so please present whatever it is you think you're referring to.
Do you mean that not all mallards can can dive and catch fish?
Or that all mallards can not dive and catch fish?
The difference is of course the situation where some can and some can not.
Would you say that humans can run the four minute mile?
"You however are saying, that because only one example of a mallard catching a fish has been recorded and witnessed (which I am not sure is the case). Mallards in general do not dive and catch fish. Initially you stated NO mallard can dive and catch fish, " - fredinjeddah
You need to present the quotes you're referring to.
"but you again moved the goal posts of your argument to indicate now that in general mallards do not dive and catch fish.
Even though it is encouraged to change ones position on a subject you are debating, it is important to acknowledge when people do prove a point against your debate. This is a common courtesy.
Memebers clearly proved that some mallards (even if it were only one) can dive and catch fish. You should acknowledge that, but you dont. " - fredinjeddah
Yet what you're referring to is the example that I TOLD YOU about. Doesn't that count for anything either? I guess not. And I guess the fact that in that ONE EXAMPLE that I TOLD YOU about, the birds were NOT chasing fish but instead picking mollusks off of rocks or whatever, doesn't matter either? I think I may be beginning to understand where you're coming from. Are you saying I can take comfort and refuge in the idea that it never counts even when I know I'm right, and it never matters even when I know the other person is wrong?
Or is it more confusing than that and sometimes it counts when I'm right but not always?
And if not always
how to know when it counts and when it doesn't?
You need to present the quotes you're referring to.
"but you again moved the goal posts of your argument to indicate now that in general mallards do not dive and catch fish.
Even though it is encouraged to change ones position on a subject you are debating, it is important to acknowledge when people do prove a point against your debate. This is a common courtesy.
Memebers clearly proved that some mallards (even if it were only one) can dive and catch fish. You should acknowledge that, but you dont. " - fredinjeddah
Yet what you're referring to is the example that I TOLD YOU about. Doesn't that count for anything either? I guess not. And I guess the fact that in that ONE EXAMPLE that I TOLD YOU about, the birds were NOT chasing fish but instead picking mollusks off of rocks or whatever, doesn't matter either? I think I may be beginning to understand where you're coming from. Are you saying I can take comfort and refuge in the idea that it never counts even when I know I'm right, and it never matters even when I know the other person is wrong?
Or is it more confusing than that
and sometimes it counts when I'm right but not always? And if not always
how to know when it counts and when it doesn't?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 6 2010, 07:46 PM)
Now is an excellent time for you to support your suggestion that you people are not working against me or whatever, so try explaining using this example.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 6 2010, 09:54 PM)
He now changes it such that the example we found isn't even counted as an example:
I ALWAYS pointed out that it was not an example, and still do. Watch:
It was not an example.
Now I'll challenge you to try to find one. Watch:
I challenge you to try to find one.
I ALWAYS pointed out that it was not an example, and still do. Watch:
It was not an example.
Now I'll challenge you to try to find one. Watch:
I challenge you to try to find one.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 6 2010, 11:32 PM)
My point is where exactly are the goal posts.
The whole arguement on both sides is very sloppy.
Are we talking about all mallards?
And even if we are talking about all mallards are we saying that all mallards can dive and catch fish? Or are we saying that all mallards can not dive and catch fish.
And both those questions are probably answered no.
From what I've seen fat well fed mallards don't have that ability.
But that skinny hungry ones do.
So what exactly is the discussion?
It's about Mallards in general, but in trying to create the impression that Mallards in general can dive and chase fish these people have been trying to find examples of them doing so. Since they haven't been able to find enough examples to support the idea that Mallards in general can, they've decided to try creating the impression that some of them can. Whether any of them can or not, so far they have been able to provide no examples of adults doing so and only one of baby ducks doing it, but they're trying to create the impression that they have provided examples of adults doing it too even though they have found none...or at least if they have I haven't seen them yet.
The whole arguement on both sides is very sloppy.
Are we talking about all mallards?
And even if we are talking about all mallards are we saying that all mallards can dive and catch fish? Or are we saying that all mallards can not dive and catch fish.
And both those questions are probably answered no.
From what I've seen fat well fed mallards don't have that ability.
But that skinny hungry ones do.
So what exactly is the discussion?
It's about Mallards in general, but in trying to create the impression that Mallards in general can dive and chase fish these people have been trying to find examples of them doing so. Since they haven't been able to find enough examples to support the idea that Mallards in general can, they've decided to try creating the impression that some of them can. Whether any of them can or not, so far they have been able to provide no examples of adults doing so and only one of baby ducks doing it, but they're trying to create the impression that they have provided examples of adults doing it too even though they have found none...or at least if they have I haven't seen them yet.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 7 2010, 06:50 AM)
It is illogical, because in the first example, one guy at the park mentioned he saw a mallard diving and catching a fish,
No he did not. He said that Mallards can dive and chase fish, meaning Mallards in general. If he knew the truth but was aware of an anomaly he would have been glad to say so and we would have discussed the unusual event in some detail, but instead he just continued to insist that Mallards can dive and chase fish like the people in this forum are doing, possibly because of people like the ones in this forum who either don't mind or enjoy encouraging false beliefs.
No he did not. He said that Mallards can dive and chase fish, meaning Mallards in general. If he knew the truth but was aware of an anomaly he would have been glad to say so and we would have discussed the unusual event in some detail, but instead he just continued to insist that Mallards can dive and chase fish like the people in this forum are doing, possibly because of people like the ones in this forum who either don't mind or enjoy encouraging false beliefs.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 7 2010, 05:55 PM)
I tried to read all the posts, but did anyone address the questions (If time is credited with 'changing' something physical, where does it get its energy ?)
Or did anyone explain how the questions were wrong and pose the right ones ?
Of course on a Board merely concerned with scientific questions, one could hardly expect more than juvenile ridicule and animal necrophilia.
Subjects closer to the hearts of almost all its members.
I've learned not to expect them to be able to answer questions like that. They can't explain why time would influenc velocity but not frequency either, which they would need to in order to explain red and blue shifting. I figured it out myself though I believe, though they would have to disagree. Time has nothing to do with it for one thing, and for another light does not impact all things at the same velocity. Forgetting about time, since frequency stays the same when light impacts objects at over 186K miles per second the frequency seems to increase causing a blue shift, and when it impacts something at less the frequency seems to decrease... That's what I came up with at least, with no help from anyone in this forum. Maybe that means I'm wrong?
Maybe he can but I never could. When I was killfiled I could never even access the site, much less read the posts and think about a reply. I always have to wonder what you will say the reason was until after the killfile period is over.
Or did anyone explain how the questions were wrong and pose the right ones ?
Of course on a Board merely concerned with scientific questions, one could hardly expect more than juvenile ridicule and animal necrophilia.
Subjects closer to the hearts of almost all its members.
I've learned not to expect them to be able to answer questions like that. They can't explain why time would influenc velocity but not frequency either, which they would need to in order to explain red and blue shifting. I figured it out myself though I believe
, though they would have to disagree. Time has nothing to do with it for one thing, and for another light does not impact all things at the same velocity. Forgetting about time, since frequency stays the same when light impacts objects at over 186K miles per second the frequency seems to increase causing a blue shift, and when it impacts something at less the frequency seems to decrease... That's what I came up with at least, with no help from anyone in this forum. Maybe that means I'm wrong?QUOTE
Moderator: Suspended 10 days for other thread. Just pointing this out so you can take your time composing your useful replies.]
Maybe he can but I never could. When I was killfiled I could never even access the site, much less read the posts and think about a reply. I always have to wonder what you will say the reason was until after the killfile period is over.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 8 2010, 12:43 PM)
I ALWAYS pointed out that it was not an example, and still do. Watch:
It was not an example.
Now I'll challenge you to try to find one. Watch:
I challenge you to try to find one.
Nope.
YOU MADE UP the reason you used to ignore the example.
So the FACT is you were presented with evidence and you simply LIED about it being evidence.
Which is typical of your posts.
Arthur
It was not an example.
Now I'll challenge you to try to find one. Watch:
I challenge you to try to find one.
Nope.
YOU MADE UP the reason you used to ignore the example.
So the FACT is you were presented with evidence and you simply LIED about it being evidence.
Which is typical of your posts.
Arthur
Im bored soo.
Time
1. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
or
2. how you think it manages to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously without the use of any energy.
or
3. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence clocks and satellites if not everything else in the universe.
Fundamental notion, Time is like C, its a term, you say hours i say minutes, but it exists to serve as a means to convey simply a complex phenomenon.
1) Same place as the original source of all energy, no idea however i dont believe times influences every bit of matter in the universe, your question contains a supposition.
2) See A with the following difference, who says it does or does NOT use energy?
3) It doesn't, Time occurred before there we're man made clocks.
For myself i consider time to be simply 'that which permits sequences of actions/reactions'.
Time
1. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
or
2. how you think it manages to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously without the use of any energy.
or
3. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence clocks and satellites if not everything else in the universe.
Fundamental notion, Time is like C, its a term, you say hours i say minutes, but it exists to serve as a means to convey simply a complex phenomenon.
1) Same place as the original source of all energy, no idea
however i dont believe times influences every bit of matter in the universe, your question contains a supposition.2) See A with the following difference, who says it does or does NOT use energy?
3) It doesn't, Time occurred before there we're man made clocks.
For myself i consider time to be simply 'that which permits sequences of actions/reactions'.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 8 2010, 04:31 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
so far I've seen NO! examples of adults doing it. Not one
That just proves once again that you are a liar.
No, it sure doesn't. To me it's more a display of your own lameness. I went back and found you had halfassly sort of mentioned the ONE adult you found that came up with a fish was not part of the group diving for mollusks. That sure doesn't mean it was diving and chasing fish though. It probably found an injured or dead one like I pointed out to begin with. And how would it eat a 4-5 inch fish anyway? Do you think a Mallard could swallow a 5 inch fish whole?
That just proves once again that you are a liar.
No, it sure doesn't. To me it's more a display of your own lameness. I went back and found you had halfassly sort of mentioned the ONE adult you found that came up with a fish was not part of the group diving for mollusks. That sure doesn't mean it was diving and chasing fish though. It probably found an injured or dead one like I pointed out to begin with. And how would it eat a 4-5 inch fish anyway? Do you think a Mallard could swallow a 5 inch fish whole?
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 8 2010, 06:50 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda challenged+)
I challenge you to try to find one.
Linguistically indicative of instant dismissal without evaluation.
Linguistically indicative of instant dismissal without evaluation.
but if time exists as a force or whatever that influences everything in the universe constantly and simultaneously then it would need enough energy to do so.
If
-time exists as a force or whatever that influences.
Then
-it would need enough energy to do so.
True, where it collapses however is that as a Construct (an idea), TIME DOES NOT INFLUENCE.
An item sat on a sheet of ice with no forces except gravity acting upon it, WILL NOT MOVE.
An item sat on a sheet of ice in a container the exact size of the item will not move, unless the force on the item exceeds the strength of the container.
Time isnt conceived of as a container, its conceived of as everything 'Icerink', take all other forces but time away, and nothing will happen even though theres time for it to happen, take away time leaving in the forces and nothing will happen because there's no 'room' for things to happen in, or the other theory is that everything will happen at once.
Sorry, the concept of time no more describes a force than the concept of space does.
'Places' for Acts to happen 'in', not 'motives' for Acts to happen because of.
Nope.
QUOTE (Kia_williams+Aug 8 2010, 07:20 PM)
Im bored soo.
Time
1. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
or
2. how you think it manages to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously without the use of any energy.
or
3. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence clocks and satellites if not everything else in the universe.
Fundamental notion, Time is like C, its a term, you say hours i say minutes, but it exists to serve as a means to convey simply a complex phenomenon.
1) Same place as the original source of all energy, no idea however i dont believe times influences every bit of matter in the universe, your question contains a supposition.
2) See A with the following difference, who says it does or does NOT use energy?
3) It doesn't, Time occurred before there we're man made clocks.
For myself i consider time to be simply 'that which permits sequences of actions/reactions'.
You can say whatever you want, but if time exists as a force or whatever that influences everything in the universe constantly and simultaneously then it would need enough energy to do so. Then it gets more detailed from there, but if you can't get that far then I guess you can't go anywhere with the concept of time. Like people want to say it changes the velocity of light which is supposed to be constant, but they can't say where or how it gets the energy with which to do so.
Time
1. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
or
2. how you think it manages to influence every bit of matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously without the use of any energy.
or
3. where/how you think it gets the energy to influence clocks and satellites if not everything else in the universe.
Fundamental notion, Time is like C, its a term, you say hours i say minutes, but it exists to serve as a means to convey simply a complex phenomenon.
1) Same place as the original source of all energy, no idea
however i dont believe times influences every bit of matter in the universe, your question contains a supposition.2) See A with the following difference, who says it does or does NOT use energy?
3) It doesn't, Time occurred before there we're man made clocks.
For myself i consider time to be simply 'that which permits sequences of actions/reactions'.
You can say whatever you want, but if time exists as a force or whatever that influences everything in the universe constantly and simultaneously then it would need enough energy to do so. Then it gets more detailed from there, but if you can't get that far then I guess you can't go anywhere with the concept of time. Like people want to say it changes the velocity of light which is supposed to be constant, but they can't say where or how it gets the energy with which to do so.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 8 2010, 02:52 PM)
I went back and found you had halfassly sort of mentioned the ONE adult you found that came up with a fish was not part of the group diving for mollusks. That sure doesn't mean it was diving and chasing fish though. It probably found an injured or dead one like I pointed out to begin with. And how would it eat a 4-5 inch fish anyway? Do you think a Mallard could swallow a 5 inch fish whole?
I didn't half way do anything, I posted the link.
It's only because of YOUR piss poor reading comprehension that you got the two different groups of ducks confused.
As far as eating fish, it apparently isn't a real problem for them, and they don't have to eat them whole.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozoni11/28408...in/set-1428340/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/susyr22/2226518680/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grant359/3817276735/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vidterry/4520870084/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vidterry/4530056066/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelbuck/174204374/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kygirl/448932378/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadgustafson/3103329523/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozoni11/2742714430/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrick_photo...in/photostream/
So once again you are shown to be WRONG about ducks.
Of course I predict you will claim these fish were all sick or injured and none of this is evidence as well.
Arthur
I didn't half way do anything, I posted the link.
It's only because of YOUR piss poor reading comprehension that you got the two different groups of ducks confused.
As far as eating fish, it apparently isn't a real problem for them, and they don't have to eat them whole.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozoni11/28408...in/set-1428340/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/susyr22/2226518680/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grant359/3817276735/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vidterry/4520870084/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vidterry/4530056066/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelbuck/174204374/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kygirl/448932378/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadgustafson/3103329523/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozoni11/2742714430/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrick_photo...in/photostream/
So once again you are shown to be WRONG about ducks.
Of course I predict you will claim these fish were all sick or injured and none of this is evidence as well.
Arthur
QUOTE
You can say whatever you want,
Linguistically indicative of instant dismissal without evaluation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You can say whatever you want, |
Linguistically indicative of instant dismissal without evaluation.
but if time exists as a force or whatever that influences everything in the universe constantly and simultaneously then it would need enough energy to do so.
If
-time exists as a force or whatever that influences.
Then
-it would need enough energy to do so.
True, where it collapses however is that as a Construct (an idea), TIME DOES NOT INFLUENCE.
An item sat on a sheet of ice with no forces except gravity acting upon it, WILL NOT MOVE.
An item sat on a sheet of ice in a container the exact size of the item will not move, unless the force on the item exceeds the strength of the container.
Time isnt conceived of as a container, its conceived of as everything 'Icerink', take all other forces but time away, and nothing will happen even though theres time for it to happen, take away time leaving in the forces and nothing will happen because there's no 'room' for things to happen in, or the other theory is that everything will happen at once.
Sorry, the concept of time no more describes a force than the concept of space does.
'Places' for Acts to happen 'in', not 'motives' for Acts to happen because of.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 8 2010, 08:46 PM)
Of course I predict you will claim these fish were all sick or injured and none of this is evidence as well.
I only looked at the last four, but there was absolutely nothing to indicate that the Mallards had caught those fish by diving and swimming them down. Certainly none of them are evidence that Mallards can dive and chase fish, and neither is anything else you've been able to come up with.
I only looked at the last four, but there was absolutely nothing to indicate that the Mallards had caught those fish by diving and swimming them down. Certainly none of them are evidence that Mallards can dive and chase fish, and neither is anything else you've been able to come up with.
QUOTE (Kia_williams+Aug 8 2010, 09:25 PM)
as a Construct (an idea), TIME DOES NOT INFLUENCE.
Some people believe it does. I've pointed out that there's a difference between saying things like: time slows down for things and time slows things down. I'm referring to belief in the latter.
Some people believe it does. I've pointed out that there's a difference between saying things like: time slows down for things and time slows things down. I'm referring to belief in the latter.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 8 2010, 07:49 PM)
I only looked at the last four, but there was absolutely nothing to indicate that the Mallards had caught those fish by diving and swimming them down. Certainly none of them are evidence that Mallards can dive and chase fish, and neither is anything else you've been able to come up with.
You have the TOTALITY of the evidence you fool.
We provided multiple videos that showed Adult Mallard ducks diving with ease.
Something you claimed they could not do.
We provided a report of several groups of mallards which were observed to make repeated dives to 5 or more feet, stay under for an average of 8 seconds and maneuver around for food.
Something you claimed they could not do.
We provided at least 9 pictures of Mallards with fish that they caught (read the captions).
Now we don't know for sure that they dove for all 9 of these, but you don't know that they didn't. Given the previously provided proof that they can in fact dive for food there is no reason to assume that they didn't dive for at least some of these fish, and if they are fast enough to catch them on the surface, there's absolutely no reason to believe they can't catch them underwater.
It also shows that they can and do catch and eat relatively large fish.
Again something you claimed they could not do.
Finally we provided a quote that included the EXPLICIT declaration from an ORTHINOLOGIST who watched a Mallard DIVE and come back up with a fish.
Which was what you originally claimed they could not do.
Obviously they can.
The fact that you have been provided all this proof and yet you still claim you have seen no proof simply shows you are either ignorant or dishonest or both.
Your pick.
I'm going with BOTH.
Arthur
You have the TOTALITY of the evidence you fool.
We provided multiple videos that showed Adult Mallard ducks diving with ease.
Something you claimed they could not do.
We provided a report of several groups of mallards which were observed to make repeated dives to 5 or more feet, stay under for an average of 8 seconds and maneuver around for food.
Something you claimed they could not do.
We provided at least 9 pictures of Mallards with fish that they caught (read the captions).
Now we don't know for sure that they dove for all 9 of these, but you don't know that they didn't. Given the previously provided proof that they can in fact dive for food there is no reason to assume that they didn't dive for at least some of these fish, and if they are fast enough to catch them on the surface, there's absolutely no reason to believe they can't catch them underwater.
It also shows that they can and do catch and eat relatively large fish.
Again something you claimed they could not do.
Finally we provided a quote that included the EXPLICIT declaration from an ORTHINOLOGIST who watched a Mallard DIVE and come back up with a fish.
Which was what you originally claimed they could not do.
Obviously they can.
The fact that you have been provided all this proof and yet you still claim you have seen no proof simply shows you are either ignorant or dishonest or both.
Your pick.
I'm going with BOTH.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 9 2010, 01:16 AM)
You have the TOTALITY of the evidence you fool.
We provided multiple videos that showed Adult Mallard ducks diving with ease.
Something you claimed they could not do.
We provided a report of several groups of mallards which were observed to make repeated dives to 5 or more feet, stay under for an average of 8 seconds and maneuver around for food.
Something you claimed they could not do.
We provided at least 9 pictures of Mallards with fish that they caught (read the captions).
Now we don't know for sure that they dove for all 9 of these, but you don't know that they didn't. Given the previously provided proof that they can in fact dive for food there is no reason to assume that they didn't dive for at least some of these fish, and if they are fast enough to catch them on the surface, there's absolutely no reason to believe they can't catch them underwater.
It also shows that they can and do catch and eat relatively large fish.
Again something you claimed they could not do.
Finally we provided a quote that included the EXPLICIT declaration from an ORTHINOLOGIST who watched a Mallard DIVE and come back up with a fish.
Which was what you originally claimed they could not do.
I originally claimed:
"Someone...told me that Mallards can dive and chase fish too, and I know that they can't. If every one of you in this forum begin to tell me Mallards can dive and chase fish I won't be very suprised, but I will still know they can't. " - nopEda
Maybe some of them can even though in general they can't, but we still haven't seen any examples of it yet. The one in your hoped for example was only down for 3 seconds which suggests the fish was probably dead or dying with no chasing required at all.
We provided multiple videos that showed Adult Mallard ducks diving with ease.
Something you claimed they could not do.
We provided a report of several groups of mallards which were observed to make repeated dives to 5 or more feet, stay under for an average of 8 seconds and maneuver around for food.
Something you claimed they could not do.
We provided at least 9 pictures of Mallards with fish that they caught (read the captions).
Now we don't know for sure that they dove for all 9 of these, but you don't know that they didn't. Given the previously provided proof that they can in fact dive for food there is no reason to assume that they didn't dive for at least some of these fish, and if they are fast enough to catch them on the surface, there's absolutely no reason to believe they can't catch them underwater.
It also shows that they can and do catch and eat relatively large fish.
Again something you claimed they could not do.
Finally we provided a quote that included the EXPLICIT declaration from an ORTHINOLOGIST who watched a Mallard DIVE and come back up with a fish.
Which was what you originally claimed they could not do.
I originally claimed:
"Someone...told me that Mallards can dive and chase fish too, and I know that they can't. If every one of you in this forum begin to tell me Mallards can dive and chase fish I won't be very suprised, but I will still know they can't. " - nopEda
Maybe some of them can even though in general they can't, but we still haven't seen any examples of it yet. The one in your hoped for example was only down for 3 seconds which suggests the fish was probably dead or dying with no chasing required at all.
Nopeda will never admit to being wrong. His pathologies do not allow for that possibility.
Yes that was your original claim but you added to that claim.
You also said:
You also said:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
from personal experience around them that they can't dive and chase fish. They can't even dive down and grab a piece of bread that sinks beyond their reach. When they do "dive" they have to be moving as fast as they can and then sort of angle down using the momentum. I've never seen an adult do it or even attempt it, but I did see a duckling do it one time when it was being chased by a kayak.
Which shows the basis for your claim that they couldn't dive and chase fish was that "They can't even dive down and grab a piece of bread that sinks beyond their reach"
Which we have conclusively shown to be FALSE.
Then you described how the young ones could dive "moving as fast as they can and then sort of angle down using the momentum" but not the adults.
Which we also conclusively showed to be FALSE.
So we clearly showed that they could in fact dive with ease and stay down maneuver around, and then we showed nearly a dozen pictures of them where they had cought and were eating fish.
You might think that doesn't prove the case, but we also have the testimony of the orthinologist who says that YES, he saw one dive down and catch a fish.
Proving you wrong on ALL counts.
Okay, poor word choice on my part for the totality of the idea, here it goes.
Time does not influence like gravity or another force does, its a medium, a place/point to exist, now, in normal situations, Ice is just ice, its slippery IF a force has been applied to an item on its surface, however if you put Ice under certain stresses, the properties change, vibration can produce imperfections that increase drag.
Hence (i suspect this is what you mean) 'Times' funkiness when extreme gravity is also a localised factor.
Time is not a force, ultimately its a medium/environment, that like other mediums can be messed with when a force is involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never being wrong ultimately means you never learn to be right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which shows the basis for your claim that they couldn't dive and chase fish was that "They can't even dive down and grab a piece of bread that sinks beyond their reach"
Which we have conclusively shown to be FALSE.
Then you described how the young ones could dive "moving as fast as they can and then sort of angle down using the momentum" but not the adults.
Which we also conclusively showed to be FALSE.
So we clearly showed that they could in fact dive with ease and stay down maneuver around, and then we showed nearly a dozen pictures of them where they had cought and were eating fish.
You might think that doesn't prove the case, but we also have the testimony of the orthinologist who says that YES, he saw one dive down and catch a fish.
Proving you wrong on ALL counts.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 8 2010, 09:26 PM)
Maybe some of them can even though in general they can't, but we still haven't seen any examples of it yet. The one in your hoped for example was only down for 3 seconds which suggests the fish was probably dead or dying with no chasing required at all.
He said it was down for OVER 3 seconds and said nothing to indicate that the fish was dead or dying.
That's just your made up BS.
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.
We all know you made that part up.
Typical JUVENILE response to being shown to be wrong.
Since you aren't a kid, I agree with Alex, it's pathological.
Arthur
He said it was down for OVER 3 seconds and said nothing to indicate that the fish was dead or dying.
That's just your made up BS.
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.
We all know you made that part up.
Typical JUVENILE response to being shown to be wrong.
Since you aren't a kid, I agree with Alex, it's pathological.
Arthur
QUOTE
Some people believe it does. I've pointed out that there's a difference between saying things like: time slows down for things and time slows things down. I'm referring to belief in the latter.
Okay, poor word choice on my part for the totality of the idea, here it goes.
Time does not influence like gravity or another force does, its a medium, a place/point to exist, now, in normal situations, Ice is just ice, its slippery IF a force has been applied to an item on its surface, however if you put Ice under certain stresses, the properties change, vibration can produce imperfections that increase drag.
Hence (i suspect this is what you mean) 'Times' funkiness when extreme gravity is also a localised factor.
Time is not a force, ultimately its a medium/environment, that like other mediums can be messed with when a force is involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never being wrong ultimately means you never learn to be right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 8 2010, 04:50 PM)
Well I've been called an idiot and stupid and countless other insulting things but no one has ever said anything good about me. Hmmm maybe you're right. It is all me and all the people who insult me and lie to me etc are the good guys? The people who insult me for not understanding things they can't attempt to explain?And who dishonestly tell me there's a lot of evidence when there is none? And then insult me for not changing my pov based on the evidence that does not exist...maybe they are the good guys and I'm the bad guy? Please provide evidence of that, and/or explain why I should accept things that are not evidence and change my pov because of....nothing other than someone else's desire that I do. Help me see why I should do that other than as a copout attempt to become more popular. Or, if there is no reason to do it other than as a copout attempt to become more popular then explain why I should do that.
I think the problem is, that regardless of what evidence is provided, it is never going to be sufficient. The only evidence you would accept is if you saw it for yourself.
The ducks you observe have not done this, so you don't believe any mallard duck can do it. I cannot see the Andromeda galaxy, but I accept it exists as I trust the scientitst from all over the world who say it exists.
There is no point finding evidence, as you will clearly never accept it anyway.
That evidence that was provided, and clearly for any logical person it is more than sufficient evidence to prove at the very least, that one mallard duck somewhere, dived underwater and came up with a fish. We don't know the health of the fish or how the duck caught the fish, but we know at least one example of a duck doing this.
I doubt very much that there is only one mallard duck in the entire world that did this, and if one can do it, it means all can potentially do it. Whether there is fully documented evidence is irrelevant.
You say it is more honest to say no mallard ducks can dive and catch healthy fish, but I think it would be more honest to say, you have not witnessed a mallard duck diving and catching a fish, and there is only one example that you are satisfied with where a mallard duck was observed diving and catching a fish, although no one is sure if the fish was healthy or not. But you stick to your pathologies as AlexG says, and still maintain no mallard duck can dive and catch fish.
It is patently clear, that your perception of "honesty" is clearly distorted. Good luck in your life, you are on a path of self isolation.
Everyone is entitled to any belief in my opinion, and you can continue in your belief that no mallard duck can dive and catch fish.
I personally never thought about a mallard duck before, but after reading the evidence provided by some members, I have come to realise, that mallard ducks have been observed diving and catching fish, and because they can dive, and because they can catch fish, I personally believe others can too.
maybe you're right. It is all me and all the people who insult me and lie to me etc are the good guys? The people who insult me for not understanding things they can't attempt to explain?And who dishonestly tell me there's a lot of evidence when there is none? And then insult me for not changing my pov based on the evidence that does not exist...maybe they are the good guys and I'm the bad guy? Please provide evidence of that, and/or explain why I should accept things that are not evidence and change my pov because of....nothing other than someone else's desire that I do. Help me see why I should do that other than as a copout attempt to become more popular. Or, if there is no reason to do it other than as a copout attempt to become more popular then explain why I should do that. I think the problem is, that regardless of what evidence is provided, it is never going to be sufficient. The only evidence you would accept is if you saw it for yourself.
The ducks you observe have not done this, so you don't believe any mallard duck can do it. I cannot see the Andromeda galaxy, but I accept it exists as I trust the scientitst from all over the world who say it exists.
There is no point finding evidence, as you will clearly never accept it anyway.
That evidence that was provided, and clearly for any logical person it is more than sufficient evidence to prove at the very least, that one mallard duck somewhere, dived underwater and came up with a fish. We don't know the health of the fish or how the duck caught the fish, but we know at least one example of a duck doing this.
I doubt very much that there is only one mallard duck in the entire world that did this, and if one can do it, it means all can potentially do it. Whether there is fully documented evidence is irrelevant.
You say it is more honest to say no mallard ducks can dive and catch healthy fish, but I think it would be more honest to say, you have not witnessed a mallard duck diving and catching a fish, and there is only one example that you are satisfied with where a mallard duck was observed diving and catching a fish, although no one is sure if the fish was healthy or not. But you stick to your pathologies as AlexG says, and still maintain no mallard duck can dive and catch fish.
It is patently clear, that your perception of "honesty" is clearly distorted. Good luck in your life, you are on a path of self isolation.
Everyone is entitled to any belief in my opinion, and you can continue in your belief that no mallard duck can dive and catch fish.
I personally never thought about a mallard duck before, but after reading the evidence provided by some members, I have come to realise, that mallard ducks have been observed diving and catching fish, and because they can dive, and because they can catch fish, I personally believe others can too.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 9 2010, 06:19 AM)
I personally never thought about a mallard duck before, but after reading the evidence provided by some members, I have come to realise, that mallard ducks have been observed diving and catching fish, and because they can dive, and because they can catch fish, I personally believe others can too.
Which of course is the reasonable and mature way of looking at the evidence provided.
Something that nopEda can't do.
Here's another video.
This one is titiled: Mallards after Shad.
Shad of course are fish.
He adds this caption:
Which shows he knows about ducks and he knows what they are chasing and also catching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4OVNi1ijOo
You can observe the flock of Mallards following the school of Shad around on the surface and you can observe several of the Mallards DIVING after them.
They wouldn't dive after them if they couldn't catch them.
Arthur
Which of course is the reasonable and mature way of looking at the evidence provided.
Something that nopEda can't do.
Here's another video.
This one is titiled: Mallards after Shad.
Shad of course are fish.
He adds this caption:
QUOTE
Mallard usually don't chase shad as much as the diving ducks (goldeneye, ringneck, bufflehead, etc) but when the shad are really thick and easy to catch - even the Mallard will eat them.
Which shows he knows about ducks and he knows what they are chasing and also catching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4OVNi1ijOo
You can observe the flock of Mallards following the school of Shad around on the surface and you can observe several of the Mallards DIVING after them.
They wouldn't dive after them if they couldn't catch them.
Arthur
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 6 2010, 11:32 PM)
It was my analogy.
How is it illogical?
In one case it's mallards diving and catching fish.
In another it's humans running the four minute mile.
My point is where exactly are the goal posts.
The whole arguement on both sides is very sloppy.
Are we talking about all mallards?
And even if we are talking about all mallards are we saying that all mallards can dive and catch fish? Or are we saying that all mallards can not dive and catch fish.
And both those questions are probably answered no.
From what I've seen fat well fed mallards don't have that ability.
But that skinny hungry ones do.
So what exactly is the discussion?
I've never seen anyone run a four minute mile but if someone told they did once I would believe them.
This is your analogy according to you.
You first stated the following:
How is it illogical?
In one case it's mallards diving and catching fish.
In another it's humans running the four minute mile.
My point is where exactly are the goal posts.
The whole arguement on both sides is very sloppy.
Are we talking about all mallards?
And even if we are talking about all mallards are we saying that all mallards can dive and catch fish? Or are we saying that all mallards can not dive and catch fish.
And both those questions are probably answered no.
From what I've seen fat well fed mallards don't have that ability.
But that skinny hungry ones do.
So what exactly is the discussion?
I've never seen anyone run a four minute mile but if someone told they did once I would believe them.
This is your analogy according to you.
QUOTE
In both cases someone makes a claim that members of population A can do activity B.
My underlining.You first stated the following:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In both cases someone makes a claim that members of population A can do activity B. |
My underlining.
You first stated the following:
QUOTE (buttershug @ Aug 5 2010, 08:35 PM)
I observe humans every day.
Can humans run a four minute mile?
The reason I ask is because the real answer is "that depends on exactly what you mean by the question.".
I've never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile.
You first stated the following:
QUOTE (buttershug @ Aug 5 2010, 08:35 PM)
I observe humans every day.
Can humans run a four minute mile?
The reason I ask is because the real answer is "that depends on exactly what you mean by the question.".
I've never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile.
This indicates you personally had no knowledge that someone can run a 4 minute mile. No mention of someone telling you anything.
NoPeda replied
This was the analogy I was criticising and that I stated was illogical.
You then stated, that this was your analogy (which it wasnt, unless there is sockpuppetry involved). Apparently your analogy which followed afterward, was that
NoPeda replied
QUOTE
If you were watching some people at a public park using a track, and someone told you that humans can run a four minute mile, indicating humans on average, and that he has seen them do it you would probably feel the same way I do about diving Mallards. Maybe not though...maybe you would just accept what he said as truth and would now believe that most humans can run a mile in four minutes.
I criticised this analogy, because in the one, it was a specific person giving an eye witness account of having seen a duck dive and catch a fish, and in the other (yours at that point) it was according to NoPeda's version of what you said, someone at the park making a general statement (without evidence or eyewitness) that humans can generally run a 4 minute mile.This was the analogy I was criticising and that I stated was illogical.
You then stated, that this was your analogy (which it wasnt, unless there is sockpuppetry involved). Apparently your analogy which followed afterward, was that
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you were watching some people at a public park using a track, and someone told you that humans can run a four minute mile, indicating humans on average, and that he has seen them do it you would probably feel the same way I do about diving Mallards. Maybe not though...maybe you would just accept what he said as truth and would now believe that most humans can run a mile in four minutes. |
I criticised this analogy, because in the one, it was a specific person giving an eye witness account of having seen a duck dive and catch a fish, and in the other (yours at that point) it was according to NoPeda's version of what you said, someone at the park making a general statement (without evidence or eyewitness) that humans can generally run a 4 minute mile.
This was the analogy I was criticising and that I stated was illogical.
You then stated, that this was your analogy (which it wasnt, unless there is sockpuppetry involved). Apparently your analogy which followed afterward, was that In both cases someone makes a claim that members of population A can do activity B
This was the analogy I was criticising and that I stated was illogical.
You then stated, that this was your analogy (which it wasnt, unless there is sockpuppetry involved). Apparently your analogy which followed afterward, was that In both cases someone makes a claim that members of population A can do activity B
At this point I had not stated that your analogy was illogical, and even clarified it by stating I was not criticising your analogy as being illogical, only NoPeda's analogy for the reason pointed out above.
I then went on to look at your statement.
Again I reiterate, that this statement clearly indicates you have no knowledge of anyone running a 4 minute mile and have never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile. For that reason, I found it inane. (lacking significance to the discussion at hand). It is illogical, because the one (duck guy) deals with an eyewitness account (evidence), and the other with someone who asks if humans can run a 4 minute mile, he has not personally met such a person who can run a 4 minute mile, and provided no evidence that maybe some humans can. Ie: No evidence.
I cannot put this more simply than this. They are two seperate arguments. The one had an eyewitness, the other had none.
You then reply:
Again I reiterate, that this statement clearly indicates you have no knowledge of anyone running a 4 minute mile and have never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile. For that reason, I found it inane. (lacking significance to the discussion at hand). It is illogical, because the one (duck guy) deals with an eyewitness account (evidence), and the other with someone who asks if humans can run a 4 minute mile, he has not personally met such a person who can run a 4 minute mile, and provided no evidence that maybe some humans can. Ie: No evidence.
I cannot put this more simply than this. They are two seperate arguments. The one had an eyewitness, the other had none.
You then reply: Someone Nopeda that he saw a mallard diving and catching a fish, someone told me he saw a man run a four minute mile. ( I read about Roger Bannister)The difference is?
Okay, poor word choice on my part for the totality of the idea, here it goes.
Time does not influence like gravity or another force does, its a medium, a place/point to exist, now, in normal situations, Ice is just ice, its slippery IF a force has been applied to an item on its surface, however if you put Ice under certain stresses, the properties change, vibration can produce imperfections that increase drag.
Hence (i suspect this is what you mean) 'Times' funkiness when extreme gravity is also a localised factor.
Time is not a force, ultimately its a medium/environment, that like other mediums can be messed with when a force is involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never being wrong ultimately means you never learn to be right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediums do influence things. Sometimes they even make things possible. Sound is an excellent example. This is the first time I've heard time said to be a medium, and I do not accept it.
One argument about time is in relation to the velocity of photons. I've been told that light always has a constant velocity. Relative to what? I've been told a number of things, but the most amusing is relative to everything. To move on lets disregard the fact that that would be impossible for the time being and go on to another amusing claim which is that light impacts everything it encounters at the same velocity. Again lets disregard the idiocy of that idea since light travels at different velocities in different mediums, and move on to consider it in no medium. If the idea were correct then when one object moving at 2K miles per second relative to a second object else emits light at 186K miles per second in the direction of that object, then the light would have a velocity of 188K miles per second unless something slows it down. When I've asked what supposedly slows lights velocity (which is also supposed to be constant) like that I've been told that "time" does it. It also supposedly speeds it up when the objects are moving away from each other. That unrealistic idea brings up more questions, like where does it get the energy necessary to make such adjustments? WHY WOULD it make them? Why does it adjust the velocity of light, but not the frequency? Why is the velocity of light said to be constant if in fact it is altered in this way by time so it impacts every object it encounters at 186K miles per second relative to the object?
Time is a dimension. Just like Up-Down, Left-Right, Forward-Back (x, y, z). Everything moves through time, just as it moves through the spacial dimensions. And all movement, through both time and the three spacial dimensions is of one nature. Movement through space effects the movement through time, and vice-versa.
Now, was that really that difficult?
idiot
Time is a dimension. Just like Up-Down, Left-Right, Forward-Back (x, y, z). Everything moves through time, just as it moves through the spacial dimensions.
That is what Wells' Time Traveller believed. That all matter exists in four dimensions. Length, width, depth, and duration. And just as you can move up, down, and sideways, one can also move about in time (duration).
Idiot. You're wrong.
But given your mental health problems, there's really no point in paying any attention to what you say or think, Fuckwit
I then went on to look at your statement.
QUOTE
Can humans run a four minute mile?The reason I ask is because the real answer is "that depends on exactly what you mean by the question.".I've never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile. I would hard pressed to do a 4 minute mile on my bike on level ground
Again I reiterate, that this statement clearly indicates you have no knowledge of anyone running a 4 minute mile and have never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile. For that reason, I found it inane. (lacking significance to the discussion at hand). It is illogical, because the one (duck guy) deals with an eyewitness account (evidence), and the other with someone who asks if humans can run a 4 minute mile, he has not personally met such a person who can run a 4 minute mile, and provided no evidence that maybe some humans can. Ie: No evidence.
I cannot put this more simply than this. They are two seperate arguments. The one had an eyewitness, the other had none.
You then reply:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can humans run a four minute mile?The reason I ask is because the real answer is "that depends on exactly what you mean by the question.".I've never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile. I would hard pressed to do a 4 minute mile on my bike on level ground |
Again I reiterate, that this statement clearly indicates you have no knowledge of anyone running a 4 minute mile and have never met anyone who can run a 4 minute mile. For that reason, I found it inane. (lacking significance to the discussion at hand). It is illogical, because the one (duck guy) deals with an eyewitness account (evidence), and the other with someone who asks if humans can run a 4 minute mile, he has not personally met such a person who can run a 4 minute mile, and provided no evidence that maybe some humans can. Ie: No evidence.
I cannot put this more simply than this. They are two seperate arguments. The one had an eyewitness, the other had none.
You then reply: Someone Nopeda that he saw a mallard diving and catching a fish, someone told me he saw a man run a four minute mile. ( I read about Roger Bannister)The difference is?
This entered a new element into the debate. Evidence. An eye witness account. It altered the entire gist of my argument. You did not say "What if a someone told me he saw a man run a 4 minute mile" You just state it as though you had been stating it previously in your argument. If you had been stating it before, I would not have said your example was illogical, because then it would be a simmilar argument. That is how you fundamentally changed the terms of the debate.
This is bad form on your part. Your ammendment without clarification made my argument seem inane (which is what you were trying to do). My argument had validity, as it dealt with eye witness evidence lacking in yours and existing in NoPeda's.
Maybe this was not your intention, but if you ever introduce a new element into a debate you should clearly indicate that this is a new point. "What if someone in the park told me he saw a man run a 4 minute mile" would have sufficed.
You then ask me "The difference is?" as though I have missed the point of your argument all along. Your argument fundamentally changed. Thats what pssssd me off.
What I also found irritating, is that I suspect our opinion on the duck fiasco is the same in disagreeing with NoPeda. Why you had to step in and argue with me on this subject, when we were in agreement is beyond me. It was clearly your frustration in our other discussion about copyright.
Why you cannot divide the two I do not know. I agree with some peoples point of view on this issue and may disagree on other issues elsewhere, but I do not carry the one to the other.
This is bad form on your part. Your ammendment without clarification made my argument seem inane (which is what you were trying to do). My argument had validity, as it dealt with eye witness evidence lacking in yours and existing in NoPeda's.
Maybe this was not your intention, but if you ever introduce a new element into a debate you should clearly indicate that this is a new point. "What if someone in the park told me he saw a man run a 4 minute mile" would have sufficed.
You then ask me "The difference is?" as though I have missed the point of your argument all along. Your argument fundamentally changed. Thats what pssssd me off.
What I also found irritating, is that I suspect our opinion on the duck fiasco is the same in disagreeing with NoPeda. Why you had to step in and argue with me on this subject, when we were in agreement is beyond me. It was clearly your frustration in our other discussion about copyright.
Why you cannot divide the two I do not know. I agree with some peoples point of view on this issue and may disagree on other issues elsewhere, but I do not carry the one to the other.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 8 2010, 05:32 PM)
Now is an excellent time for you to support your suggestion that you people are not working against me or whatever, so try explaining using this example.
GG Said
I thought it was a rather clever and funny statement at the same time so I put in a smiley.
NoPeda, You bring it on your self. I have no interest or need to look for aliances on this forum, in fact I kinda despise alliances that are formed, and trust me I am not liked enough on this forum to have any "alliances" nor do I know you, so trust me, there is no conspiracy from me against you, other than realising you are illogical, but that is my own personal opinion.
GG Said
QUOTE
That's because he is either a troll or an idiot.
I seriously doubt that anyone is that stupid, so I suspect he is a troll. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Referring to NoPedaI seriously doubt that anyone is that stupid, so I suspect he is a troll. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
I thought it was a rather clever and funny statement at the same time so I put in a smiley.
NoPeda, You bring it on your self. I have no interest or need to look for aliances on this forum, in fact I kinda despise alliances that are formed, and trust me I am not liked enough on this forum to have any "alliances" nor do I know you, so trust me, there is no conspiracy from me against you, other than realising you are illogical, but that is my own personal opinion.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 9 2010, 11:19 AM)
That evidence that was provided, and clearly for any logical person it is more than sufficient evidence to prove at the very least, that one mallard duck somewhere, dived underwater and came up with a fish. We don't know the health of the fish or how the duck caught the fish, but we know at least one example of a duck doing this.
I doubt very much that there is only one mallard duck in the entire world that did this, and if one can do it, it means all can potentially do it. Whether there is fully documented evidence is irrelevant.
You say it is more honest to say no mallard ducks can dive and catch healthy fish, but I think it would be more honest to say, you have not witnessed a mallard duck diving and catching a fish, and there is only one example that you are satisfied with where a mallard duck was observed diving and catching a fish, although no one is sure if the fish was healthy or not. But you stick to your pathologies as AlexG says, and still maintain no mallard duck can dive and catch fish.
It is patently clear, that your perception of "honesty" is clearly distorted. Good luck in your life, you are on a path of self isolation.
Everyone is entitled to any belief in my opinion, and you can continue in your belief that no mallard duck can dive and catch fish.
Up until the shad thing there was no evidence at all. The supposed one turned out to be even lamer than I had thought, since it was just a random 3 second dive where a Mallard went down and apparantly grabbed a dead or dying fish. There was no time for any "chasing" in just 3 seconds.
I was suprised that they could dive and get shellfish, but until today there was no evidence of them diving and chasing fish. I've been MORE THAN generous by playing along and accepting the supposed example until now, and even accepting the shad thing is being MUCH MORE THAN generous on my part. Of course the reason for that is explained by the author. So even with the shad thing we still have no examples of adult Mallards diving and chasing fish, and only one example of baby ducks doing it.
I never said that no Mallard has ever dived and chased fish, nor have I discussed that with any of you in detail afaik. What I have done is point out that the supposed examples are NOT examples. Just because YOU accept them as such doesn't mean I have to, since my reasons for not accepting them remain.
So to sum it up you people still haven't produced any good examples of Mallards diving and chasing fish, whether there are any doing so or not. Since you not only have NOT been able to produce a number of examples of it--but instead have been able to produce NO good examples--I will continue to feel it's more honest to tell people that Mallards can not dive and chase fish. But since your interpretation of honesty is much different than mine I expect you will enjoy going around getting people to believe that Mallards can dive and chase fish, which from my pov is horribly dishonest.
I doubt very much that there is only one mallard duck in the entire world that did this, and if one can do it, it means all can potentially do it. Whether there is fully documented evidence is irrelevant.
You say it is more honest to say no mallard ducks can dive and catch healthy fish, but I think it would be more honest to say, you have not witnessed a mallard duck diving and catching a fish, and there is only one example that you are satisfied with where a mallard duck was observed diving and catching a fish, although no one is sure if the fish was healthy or not. But you stick to your pathologies as AlexG says, and still maintain no mallard duck can dive and catch fish.
It is patently clear, that your perception of "honesty" is clearly distorted. Good luck in your life, you are on a path of self isolation.
Everyone is entitled to any belief in my opinion, and you can continue in your belief that no mallard duck can dive and catch fish.
Up until the shad thing there was no evidence at all. The supposed one turned out to be even lamer than I had thought, since it was just a random 3 second dive where a Mallard went down and apparantly grabbed a dead or dying fish. There was no time for any "chasing" in just 3 seconds.
I was suprised that they could dive and get shellfish, but until today there was no evidence of them diving and chasing fish. I've been MORE THAN generous by playing along and accepting the supposed example until now, and even accepting the shad thing is being MUCH MORE THAN generous on my part. Of course the reason for that is explained by the author. So even with the shad thing we still have no examples of adult Mallards diving and chasing fish, and only one example of baby ducks doing it.
I never said that no Mallard has ever dived and chased fish, nor have I discussed that with any of you in detail afaik. What I have done is point out that the supposed examples are NOT examples. Just because YOU accept them as such doesn't mean I have to, since my reasons for not accepting them remain.
So to sum it up you people still haven't produced any good examples of Mallards diving and chasing fish, whether there are any doing so or not. Since you not only have NOT been able to produce a number of examples of it--but instead have been able to produce NO good examples--I will continue to feel it's more honest to tell people that Mallards can not dive and chase fish. But since your interpretation of honesty is much different than mine I expect you will enjoy going around getting people to believe that Mallards can dive and chase fish, which from my pov is horribly dishonest.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 9 2010, 03:54 AM)
He said it was down for OVER 3 seconds and said nothing to indicate that the fish was dead or dying.
That's just your made up BS.
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.
We all know you made that part up.
Of course from my pov since it was only down for ABOUT 3 seconds which is not long enough for any chasing, you are the one imagining some fantasy about a chase. That may be in part because I also observe water birds that CAN dive and chase fish (while you don't observe any that can or can't), but I'm not going into that one with you
. I'd hate to see you take off in the other direction too and try to create the impression that diving birds can not dive and chase fish.
That's just your made up BS.
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.
We all know you made that part up.
Of course from my pov since it was only down for ABOUT 3 seconds which is not long enough for any chasing, you are the one imagining some fantasy about a chase. That may be in part because I also observe water birds that CAN dive and chase fish (while you don't observe any that can or can't), but I'm not going into that one with you
. I'd hate to see you take off in the other direction too and try to create the impression that diving birds can not dive and chase fish.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 9 2010, 02:20 PM)
NoPeda, You bring it on your self. I have no interest or need to look for aliances on this forum, in fact I kinda despise alliances that are formed, and trust me I am not liked enough on this forum to have any "alliances" nor do I know you, so trust me, there is no conspiracy from me against you, other than realising you are illogical, but that is my own personal opinion.
First it seemed you were suggesting that I accept examples I consider to be unacceptable just in an attempt to become more popular with...whoever. And now it seems you're suggesting that you yourself don't do things like that. Hmmm. Oh, I get it, you're saying that I can't win no matter what. Right?
First it seemed you were suggesting that I accept examples I consider to be unacceptable just in an attempt to become more popular with...whoever. And now it seems you're suggesting that you yourself don't do things like that. Hmmm. Oh, I get it
, you're saying that I can't win no matter what. Right?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2010, 10:16 AM)
Of course from my pov since it was only down for ABOUT 3 seconds which is not long enough for any chasing, you are the one imagining some fantasy about a chase. That may be in part because I also observe water birds that CAN dive and chase fish (while you don't observe any that can or can't), but I'm not going into that one with you . I'd hate to see you take off in the other direction too and try to create the impression that diving birds can not dive and chase fish.
Again, being dishonest, you add your own qualifiers to try to negate the examples.
Because apparently even if a duck chases a fish under water and catches it, if the chase doesn't last X seconds, to you it doesn't count as a chase.
Which is just nopEda BS.
A chase doesn't have to last long to be a chase you fool.
By definition, if a duck dives after a fish and and catches it then it has indeed CHASED it down.
Again, you can make up all the BS you want, but we have shown with links, photos and videos, which I feel are sufficient for all impartial observers, that Mallards indeed can dive and chase fish successfully.
Doesn't mean they are as good at it as ducks that are classified as Diving ducks, but that wasn't the issue.
What is clear is that the abilites of Mallards and Diving ducks overlap.
Arthur
. I'd hate to see you take off in the other direction too and try to create the impression that diving birds can not dive and chase fish. Again, being dishonest, you add your own qualifiers to try to negate the examples.
Because apparently even if a duck chases a fish under water and catches it, if the chase doesn't last X seconds, to you it doesn't count as a chase.
Which is just nopEda BS.
A chase doesn't have to last long to be a chase you fool.
By definition, if a duck dives after a fish and and catches it then it has indeed CHASED it down.
Again, you can make up all the BS you want, but we have shown with links, photos and videos, which I feel are sufficient for all impartial observers, that Mallards indeed can dive and chase fish successfully.
Doesn't mean they are as good at it as ducks that are classified as Diving ducks, but that wasn't the issue.
What is clear is that the abilites of Mallards and Diving ducks overlap.
Arthur
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 9 2010, 03:21 AM)
Nopeda will never admit to being wrong.
I have admitted to being wrong.
I have admitted to being wrong.
QUOTE (Kia_williams+Aug 9 2010, 04:12 AM)
Okay, poor word choice on my part for the totality of the idea, here it goes.
Time does not influence like gravity or another force does, its a medium, a place/point to exist, now, in normal situations, Ice is just ice, its slippery IF a force has been applied to an item on its surface, however if you put Ice under certain stresses, the properties change, vibration can produce imperfections that increase drag.
Hence (i suspect this is what you mean) 'Times' funkiness when extreme gravity is also a localised factor.
Time is not a force, ultimately its a medium/environment, that like other mediums can be messed with when a force is involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never being wrong ultimately means you never learn to be right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediums do influence things. Sometimes they even make things possible. Sound is an excellent example. This is the first time I've heard time said to be a medium, and I do not accept it.
One argument about time is in relation to the velocity of photons. I've been told that light always has a constant velocity. Relative to what? I've been told a number of things, but the most amusing is relative to everything. To move on lets disregard the fact that that would be impossible for the time being and go on to another amusing claim which is that light impacts everything it encounters at the same velocity. Again lets disregard the idiocy of that idea since light travels at different velocities in different mediums, and move on to consider it in no medium. If the idea were correct then when one object moving at 2K miles per second relative to a second object else emits light at 186K miles per second in the direction of that object, then the light would have a velocity of 188K miles per second unless something slows it down. When I've asked what supposedly slows lights velocity (which is also supposed to be constant) like that I've been told that "time" does it. It also supposedly speeds it up when the objects are moving away from each other. That unrealistic idea brings up more questions, like where does it get the energy necessary to make such adjustments? WHY WOULD it make them? Why does it adjust the velocity of light, but not the frequency? Why is the velocity of light said to be constant if in fact it is altered in this way by time so it impacts every object it encounters at 186K miles per second relative to the object?
idiot
Nothing more really needs to be said.
Nothing more really needs to be said.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2010, 11:17 AM)
(Blah blah blah...) To move on lets disregard the fact that that would be impossible for the time being (... blah blah blah)
Interesting choice of phrase for someone who doesn't believe that time exists...
Interesting choice of phrase for someone who doesn't believe that time exists...
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 9 2010, 07:04 PM)
Interesting choice of phrase for someone who doesn't believe that time exists...
My guess was that anyone who said anything about it would probaby believe that time does exist. You believe time does exist, don't you?
My guess was that anyone who said anything about it would probaby believe that time does exist. You believe time does exist, don't you?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 9 2010, 05:57 PM)
idiot
Nothing more really needs to be said.
There does if you don't want to continue appearing to be an idiot yourself. Like an attempt at explaining what it is you think you're trying to bitch about, if you think you have any idea at all.
Nothing more really needs to be said.
There does if you don't want to continue appearing to be an idiot yourself. Like an attempt at explaining what it is you think you're trying to bitch about, if you think you have any idea at all.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2010, 11:17 AM)
Mediums do influence things. Sometimes they even make things possible. Sound is an excellent example. ..... so it impacts every object it encounters at 186K miles per second relative to the object?
Maybe this will help... Use the formula d=r*t and consider the medium of space. Quantum theory is interesting. Someone probably discussed the above, already. This thread has more to do with quantum theory, than the creation-evo debate. For your 1-3; some think time exists independantly of the physical so your question, to them, wouldn't apply.
Maybe this will help... Use the formula d=r*t and consider the medium of space. Quantum theory is interesting. Someone probably discussed the above, already. This thread has more to do with quantum theory, than the creation-evo debate. For your 1-3; some think time exists independantly of the physical so your question, to them, wouldn't apply.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2010, 03:22 PM)
My guess was that anyone who said anything about it would probaby believe that time does exist. You believe time does exist, don't you?
In the same way that space does. (A second exists in the same way an inch does... an hour in the same way a meter does.)
But I don't have time to discuss it right now.
In the same way that space does. (A second exists in the same way an inch does... an hour in the same way a meter does.)
But I don't have time to discuss it right now.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 9 2010, 08:57 PM)
(A second exists in the same way an inch does... an hour in the same way a meter does.)
But time is not absolute. An inch or a meter should be absolute. However, here on Earth where some of us reside, time probably is absolute.
But time is not absolute. An inch or a meter should be absolute. However, here on Earth where some of us reside, time probably is absolute.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Aug 9 2010, 05:25 PM)
But time is not absolute. An inch or a meter should be absolute. However, here on Earth where some of us reside, time probably is absolute.
Well, if my understanding is correct, an inch is not always an inch for all observers. Once again, it's relative. (They don't call it spacetime for nothing.)
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm
Well, if my understanding is correct, an inch is not always an inch for all observers. Once again, it's relative. (They don't call it spacetime for nothing.)
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm
QUOTE (TracerTong+Aug 9 2010, 08:33 PM)
Maybe this will help... Use the formula d=r*t and consider the medium of space. Quantum theory is interesting. Someone probably discussed the above, already. This thread has more to do with quantum theory, than the creation-evo debate. For your 1-3; some think time exists independantly of the physical so your question, to them, wouldn't apply.
My interpretation of the quatum theory is that it has to do with the bahavior of electrons in orbit around nuclei, and their jumps to higher orbitals when they absorb a photon or for whatever other reason(s), and then their jump back down after the release of it. That's not the same as the velocity at which photons impact electrons, or how/why photons change their velocity (supposedly) so they impact every object in the universe at 186K miles per second relative to the object itself. Whether or not they impact everything at 186K miles per second relative to their point of emition, which is what I still believe, is a different topic as well.
My interpretation of the quatum theory is that it has to do with the bahavior of electrons in orbit around nuclei, and their jumps to higher orbitals when they absorb a photon or for whatever other reason(s), and then their jump back down after the release of it. That's not the same as the velocity at which photons impact electrons, or how/why photons change their velocity (supposedly) so they impact every object in the universe at 186K miles per second relative to the object itself. Whether or not they impact everything at 186K miles per second relative to their point of emition, which is what I still believe, is a different topic as well.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 9 2010, 08:57 PM)
In the same way that space does. (A second exists in the same way an inch does... an hour in the same way a meter does.)
But I don't have time to discuss it right now.
Then it sounds like you don't believe that time exists in a way that time itself can change anything, which is what I believe. Other people appear to believe that time exists in a way that it can and does change things, and some people appear to believe that time changes everything instead of not changing anything. Some people even believe it's possible to travel "back in time", which when we think it through is a false way of thinking overall since in such case the object or people who are supposedly "traveling" are really staying the same, and everything else in the universe is changing back to the positions and conditions it was in at the time that's supposedly being traveled back to...
But I don't have time to discuss it right now.
Then it sounds like you don't believe that time exists in a way that time itself can change anything, which is what I believe. Other people appear to believe that time exists in a way that it can and does change things, and some people appear to believe that time changes everything instead of not changing anything. Some people even believe it's possible to travel "back in time", which when we think it through is a false way of thinking overall since in such case the object or people who are supposedly "traveling" are really staying the same, and everything else in the universe is changing back to the positions and conditions it was in at the time that's supposedly being traveled back to...
QUOTE
Then it sounds like you don't believe that time exists in a way that time itself can change anything, which is what I believe.
Time is a dimension. Just like Up-Down, Left-Right, Forward-Back (x, y, z). Everything moves through time, just as it moves through the spacial dimensions. And all movement, through both time and the three spacial dimensions is of one nature. Movement through space effects the movement through time, and vice-versa.
Now, was that really that difficult?
idiot
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 10 2010, 02:20 AM)
Time is a dimension. Just like Up-Down, Left-Right, Forward-Back (x, y, z). Everything moves through time, just as it moves through the spacial dimensions.
That is what Wells' Time Traveller believed. That all matter exists in four dimensions. Length, width, depth, and duration. And just as you can move up, down, and sideways, one can also move about in time (duration).
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2010, 08:03 PM)
Then it sounds like you don't believe that time exists in a way that time itself can change anything, which is what I believe.
I "believe" you should read a book or two on relativity and stop being a phuck head.
I "believe" you should read a book or two on relativity and stop being a phuck head.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 10 2010, 02:20 AM)
Movement through space effects the movement through time, and vice-versa.
What is the result of the effect? How could it have any influence on matter if time itself has no influence on matter? Or, if you think time does have influence on matter, where do you think it gets the energy needed to do so?
What is the result of the effect? How could it have any influence on matter if time itself has no influence on matter? Or, if you think time does have influence on matter, where do you think it gets the energy needed to do so?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 10 2010, 03:47 PM)
I "believe" you should read a book or two on relativity and stop being a phuck head.
What you're really letting me know is that you can't explain whatever it is you think about the subject, nor can you say where it's explained online somewhere.
What you're really letting me know is that you can't explain whatever it is you think about the subject, nor can you say where it's explained online somewhere.
nopeda doesn't read books.
nopeda appears allergic to actually learning. He'd rather have it spoon fed to him in easy to take doses. And then he'll refuse to accept it he can't understand it.
Nopeda, here's a link to the answer to your questions. The problem is, you actually have to read and think about it.
Einstein's Special and General Relativity.
nopeda appears allergic to actually learning. He'd rather have it spoon fed to him in easy to take doses. And then he'll refuse to accept it he can't understand it.
Nopeda, here's a link to the answer to your questions. The problem is, you actually have to read and think about it.
Einstein's Special and General Relativity.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 10 2010, 11:09 AM)
What you're really letting me know is that you can't explain whatever it is you think about the subject, nor can you say where it's explained online somewhere.
You would be incorrect. I have posted many links that explain it to you (as have many others), but you seem to be incapable of either reading them or understanding what you've read.
You would be incorrect. I have posted many links that explain it to you (as have many others), but you seem to be incapable of either reading them or understanding what you've read.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 10 2010, 08:05 PM)
you seem to be incapable of either reading them or understanding what you've read.
Please post some quotes and a link that explains how and why photons adjust their velocity so they impact everything they encounter at 186K miles per second, and/or something that explains why they do not. One or the other, or both, should be easy for you.
Please post some quotes and a link that explains how and why photons adjust their velocity so they impact everything they encounter at 186K miles per second, and/or something that explains why they do not. One or the other, or both, should be easy for you.
[QUOTE Fuckwit David Harrison,Aug 10 2010, 09:45 PM] Please post some quotes and a link that explains how and why photons adjust their velocity so they impact everything they encounter at 186K miles per second, and/or something that explains why they do not. One or the other, or both, should be easy for you. [/QUOTE]
Read it this time, stupid.
Einstein. Read this you idiot.
Read it this time, stupid.
Einstein. Read this you idiot.
You haven't read any links anyone's posted yet. (AlexG posted a good one... just 3 posts or so above this one... read it yet? I didn't think so.)
And honestly, I'm not sure I understand why or how. I'm still thinkin' on that one. But the OBSERVATION is that everyone measures light at the same speed.
The IMPLICATION is that space and/or time are variable.
And honestly, I'm not sure I understand why or how. I'm still thinkin' on that one. But the OBSERVATION is that everyone measures light at the same speed.
The IMPLICATION is that space and/or time are variable.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 11 2010, 02:53 AM)
Read it this time, stupid.
Since you apparently had no idea where to find any explanations I went ahead and found some for you, but they reinforce what I've believed all along. For one thing they let me know that I am NOT an idiot for questioning things, as you people have been trying to get me to believe I am. I also found that RELATIVE TO WHAT is a very significant question, the significance of which the people in this forum have been cluelessly denying.
________________________________________
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html#2
CONTENTS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD
Albert Einstein (18791955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity
. . .
Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light (and indeed every other process) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system). As such a system let us again choose our embankment. We shall imagine the air above it to have been removed. If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. 3
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V.
. . .
We advance a step farther in our generalisation when we express the tenet thus: If, relative to K, K' is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K' according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. This statement is called the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense). 3
As long as one was convinced that all natural phenomena were capable of representation with the help of classical mechanics, there was no need to doubt the validity of this principle of relativity. But in view of the more recent development of electrodynamics and optics it became more and more evident that classical mechanics affords an insufficient foundation for the physical description of all natural phenomena. At this juncture the question of the validity of the principle of relativity became ripe for discussion, and it did not appear impossible that the answer to this question might be in the negative.
. . .
http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
To me the above and the following indicate that light does NOT impact everything in the universe at the same velocity relative to the object being struck. Also, I found nothing in what I read to indicate that anyone other than the people in this forum believe that it does.
________________________________________
http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
CONTENTS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD
Albert Einstein (18791955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
V. The Principle of Relativity (In the Restricted Sense)
. . .
We now proceed to the second argument, to which, moreover, we shall return later. If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not hold, then the Galileian co-ordinate systems K, K', K'', etc., which are moving uniformly relative to each other, will not be equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In this case we should be constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being formulated in a particularly simple manner, and of course only on condition that, from amongst all possible Galileian co-ordinate systems, we should have chosen one (K0) of a particular state of motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified (because of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling this system absolutely at rest, and all other Galileian systems K in motion. If, for instance, our embankment were the system K0, then our railway carriage would be a system K, relative to which less simple laws would hold than with respect to K0.
. . .
http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
There again we see the significance of relative to what, which I was insulted for taking into consideration. Thanks for encouraging me to read things that support what I've been pointing out, and you people have been insulting me for mentioning.
Since you apparently had no idea where to find any explanations I went ahead and found some for you, but they reinforce what I've believed all along. For one thing they let me know that I am NOT an idiot for questioning things, as you people have been trying to get me to believe I am. I also found that RELATIVE TO WHAT is a very significant question, the significance of which the people in this forum have been cluelessly denying.
________________________________________
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html#2
CONTENTS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD
Albert Einstein (18791955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity
. . .
Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light (and indeed every other process) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system). As such a system let us again choose our embankment. We shall imagine the air above it to have been removed. If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. 3
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V.
. . .
We advance a step farther in our generalisation when we express the tenet thus: If, relative to K, K' is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K' according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. This statement is called the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense). 3
As long as one was convinced that all natural phenomena were capable of representation with the help of classical mechanics, there was no need to doubt the validity of this principle of relativity. But in view of the more recent development of electrodynamics and optics it became more and more evident that classical mechanics affords an insufficient foundation for the physical description of all natural phenomena. At this juncture the question of the validity of the principle of relativity became ripe for discussion, and it did not appear impossible that the answer to this question might be in the negative.
. . .
http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
To me the above and the following indicate that light does NOT impact everything in the universe at the same velocity relative to the object being struck. Also, I found nothing in what I read to indicate that anyone other than the people in this forum believe that it does.
________________________________________
http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
CONTENTS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD
Albert Einstein (18791955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
V. The Principle of Relativity (In the Restricted Sense)
. . .
We now proceed to the second argument, to which, moreover, we shall return later. If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not hold, then the Galileian co-ordinate systems K, K', K'', etc., which are moving uniformly relative to each other, will not be equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In this case we should be constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being formulated in a particularly simple manner, and of course only on condition that, from amongst all possible Galileian co-ordinate systems, we should have chosen one (K0) of a particular state of motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified (because of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling this system absolutely at rest, and all other Galileian systems K in motion. If, for instance, our embankment were the system K0, then our railway carriage would be a system K, relative to which less simple laws would hold than with respect to K0.
. . .
http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
There again we see the significance of relative to what, which I was insulted for taking into consideration. Thanks for encouraging me to read things that support what I've been pointing out, and you people have been insulting me for mentioning.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 11 2010, 03:01 AM)
the OBSERVATION is that everyone measures light at the same speed.
The IMPLICATION is that space and/or time are variable.
The speed of light is constant relative to its point of emition unless something changes the speed of the light. If light is emitted by a moving object its speed can change relative to the object if the object changes speed, even though it remains constant relative to the point in space at which it was emitted. The velocity of an object being impacted by light relative to the point at which the light was emitted, is combined with or removed from the velocity at which the light impacts the object. If the velocity is great enough then it causes what appears to be a red or blue shift in the color of the light striking the object, because the altered velocity creates the false impression that the frequency has changed even though the frequency still remains constant relative to the observer. At least that's my interpretation of it anyway and you'll need to do more than just say no and provide a link to a website if you want to provide reason for me to believe otherwise. The link to the last website REINFORCED my belief.
If as I suspect space and time don't really exist then of course they are variable. People can and do make up whatever they want to about both concepts. Length etc and duration would be less variable since they have exact characteristics agreed upon by humans.
The IMPLICATION is that space and/or time are variable.
The speed of light is constant relative to its point of emition unless something changes the speed of the light. If light is emitted by a moving object its speed can change relative to the object if the object changes speed, even though it remains constant relative to the point in space at which it was emitted. The velocity of an object being impacted by light relative to the point at which the light was emitted, is combined with or removed from the velocity at which the light impacts the object. If the velocity is great enough then it causes what appears to be a red or blue shift in the color of the light striking the object, because the altered velocity creates the false impression that the frequency has changed even though the frequency still remains constant relative to the observer. At least that's my interpretation of it anyway and you'll need to do more than just say no and provide a link to a website if you want to provide reason for me to believe otherwise. The link to the last website REINFORCED my belief.
If as I suspect space and time don't really exist then of course they are variable. People can and do make up whatever they want to about both concepts. Length etc and duration would be less variable since they have exact characteristics agreed upon by humans.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 11 2010, 03:08 PM)
The speed of light is constant relative to its point of emition unless something changes the speed of the light. If light is emitted by a moving object its speed can change relative to the object if the object changes speed, even though it remains constant relative to the point in space at which it was emitted. .
Wrong
Unlearn that.
It is wrong.
The Universe does not operate like that.
The speed of light is contant to everything.
You can't use the logic of everyday ordinary things that operate well below light speed.
You have much to unlearn before you can move forward.
the distance from the front of a spaceship traveling near light speed isn't the same for people on the ship as it is for people on a "stationary" space station.
Space and Time do not exist as you understand them. Is that so hard to understand? That what you think we are talking about when we say time is not what we are talking about?
Wrong
Unlearn that.
It is wrong.
The Universe does not operate like that.
The speed of light is contant to everything.
You can't use the logic of everyday ordinary things that operate well below light speed.
You have much to unlearn before you can move forward.
the distance from the front of a spaceship traveling near light speed isn't the same for people on the ship as it is for people on a "stationary" space station.
Space and Time do not exist as you understand them. Is that so hard to understand? That what you think we are talking about when we say time is not what we are talking about?
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 11 2010, 04:58 PM)
The speed of light is contant to everything.
Not according to the info at the link you provided. The idea itself is absurd, we've seen nothing to indicate you're right, if it were true there would be no blue or red shifting, and the info at the link you provided suggests you're wrong.
Not according to the info at the link you provided. The idea itself is absurd, we've seen nothing to indicate you're right, if it were true there would be no blue or red shifting, and the info at the link you provided suggests you're wrong.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 11 2010, 06:13 PM)
Not according to the info at the link you provided. The idea itself is absurd, we've seen nothing to indicate you're right, if it were true there would be no blue or red shifting, and the info at the link you provided suggests you're wrong.
The universe is absurd.
Get used to it.
And yes there would be blue or red shifting.
So what? The speed is constant.
By speed I mean m/s not wavepeaks/s.
The universe is absurd.
Get used to it.
And yes there would be blue or red shifting.
So what? The speed is constant.
By speed I mean m/s not wavepeaks/s.
QUOTE
light is emitted by a moving object its speed can change relative to the object if the object changes speed, even though it remains constant relative to the point in space at which it was emitted.
Idiot. You're wrong.
But given your mental health problems, there's really no point in paying any attention to what you say or think, Fuckwit
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 11 2010, 10:08 AM)
The speed of light is constant relative to its point of emition unless something changes the speed of the light. If light is emitted by a moving object its speed can change relative to the object if the object changes speed, even though it remains constant relative to the point in space at which it was emitted. The velocity of an object being impacted by light relative to the point at which the light was emitted, is combined with or removed from the velocity at which the light impacts the object. If the velocity is great enough then it causes what appears to be a red or blue shift in the color of the light striking the object, because the altered velocity creates the false impression that the frequency has changed even though the frequency still remains constant relative to the observer. At least that's my interpretation of it anyway and you'll need to do more than just say no and provide a link to a website if you want to provide reason for me to believe otherwise. The link to the last website REINFORCED my belief.
If as I suspect space and time don't really exist then of course they are variable. People can and do make up whatever they want to about both concepts. Length etc and duration would be less variable since they have exact characteristics agreed upon by humans.
Try this thought experiment. (I know you're not accustomed to thinking, but try anyway.)
Imagine you are travelling on a beam of light. You hold a mirror up in front of you. Will you see yourself in the mirror? Why or why not?
One other question... are you currently moving through space? How can you tell?
If as I suspect space and time don't really exist then of course they are variable. People can and do make up whatever they want to about both concepts. Length etc and duration would be less variable since they have exact characteristics agreed upon by humans.
Try this thought experiment. (I know you're not accustomed to thinking, but try anyway.)
Imagine you are travelling on a beam of light. You hold a mirror up in front of you. Will you see yourself in the mirror? Why or why not?
One other question... are you currently moving through space? How can you tell?
Fuckwit David Harrison
So reading Einstein convinced you that Einstein was wrong, because you don't understand what he wrote.
What else is new?
QUOTE
The link to the last website REINFORCED my belief.
So reading Einstein convinced you that Einstein was wrong, because you don't understand what he wrote.
What else is new?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 11 2010, 06:40 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
light is emitted by a moving object its speed can change relative to the object if the object changes speed, even though it remains constant relative to the point in space at which it was emitted.
Idiot. You're wrong.
Try explaining how you think I'm wrong about either of them. When you can't explain it yourself you will be revealing that you don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about.
Idiot. You're wrong.
Try explaining how you think I'm wrong about either of them. When you can't explain it yourself you will be revealing that you don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 11 2010, 07:03 PM)
Try this thought experiment. (I know you're not accustomed to thinking, but try anyway.)
Imagine you are travelling on a beam of light. You hold a mirror up in front of you. Will you see yourself in the mirror? Why or why not?
One other question... are you currently moving through space? How can you tell?
The mirror trick would depend on if and how a person was lit among other things. If the craft had decent lighting and had some mirrors aboard:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes...tation04_07.gif
there's no reason to think the crew wouldn't be able to see their reflections.
If we're not moving through "space" then we're sitting motionless and the rest of the universe is moving around us, which you very well may believe to be the case but I do not. Since I don't, I'm convinced that we're moving through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.
Imagine you are travelling on a beam of light. You hold a mirror up in front of you. Will you see yourself in the mirror? Why or why not?
One other question... are you currently moving through space? How can you tell?
The mirror trick would depend on if and how a person was lit among other things. If the craft had decent lighting and had some mirrors aboard:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes...tation04_07.gif
there's no reason to think the crew wouldn't be able to see their reflections.
If we're not moving through "space" then we're sitting motionless and the rest of the universe is moving around us, which you very well may believe to be the case but I do not. Since I don't, I'm convinced that we're moving through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 12 2010, 05:54 PM)
Idiot. You're wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Try explaining how you think I'm wrong about either of them. When you can't explain it yourself you will be revealing that you don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about.
First GPS works and would not work the way it is set up if you were right.
If a space ship sent a beam of laser light directly ahead of it, the light would be traveling at c.
If the space ship then speeds up to 0.5c, the light is still moving away from it at c.
To further complicate things if the spaceship fired the laser burst while sitting at a space port. When the spaceship reaches 0.5c, then both the spaceship and the space station have that beam of light moving away at c.
If I"m wrong GPS does not work.
So ask yourself. Does GPS work or not?
If it works you don't understand relativity.
You really need how to unlearn.
And yes how I described the spaceship and light is absurd. But that is how it is.
[/QUOTE]
Try explaining how you think I'm wrong about either of them. When you can't explain it yourself you will be revealing that you don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about.
First GPS works and would not work the way it is set up if you were right.
If a space ship sent a beam of laser light directly ahead of it, the light would be traveling at c.
If the space ship then speeds up to 0.5c, the light is still moving away from it at c.
To further complicate things if the spaceship fired the laser burst while sitting at a space port. When the spaceship reaches 0.5c, then both the spaceship and the space station have that beam of light moving away at c.
If I"m wrong GPS does not work.
So ask yourself. Does GPS work or not?
If it works you don't understand relativity.
You really need how to unlearn.
And yes how I described the spaceship and light is absurd. But that is how it is.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 12 2010, 05:23 AM)
reading Einstein convinced you that Einstein was wrong
How do you think you came up with that claim, do you have any idea?
How do you think you came up with that claim, do you have any idea?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 12 2010, 06:12 PM)
The mirror trick would depend on if and how a person was lit among other things. If the craft had decent lighting and had some mirrors aboard:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes...tation04_07.gif
there's no reason to think the crew wouldn't be able to see their reflections.
If we're not moving through "space" then we're sitting motionless and the rest of the universe is moving around us, which you very well may believe to be the case but I do not. Since I don't, I'm convinced that we're moving through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.
You did not answer the question asked.
You answered something else that was not what the question asked.
And for our speed, relative to what?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes...tation04_07.gif
there's no reason to think the crew wouldn't be able to see their reflections.
If we're not moving through "space" then we're sitting motionless and the rest of the universe is moving around us, which you very well may believe to be the case but I do not. Since I don't, I'm convinced that we're moving through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.
You did not answer the question asked.
You answered something else that was not what the question asked.
And for our speed, relative to what?
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 12 2010, 06:15 PM)
GPS works and would not work the way it is set up if you were right.
So far I have no reason at all to believe you. Try providing one.
So far I have no reason at all to believe you. Try providing one.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 12 2010, 06:18 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
The mirror trick would depend on if and how a person was lit among other things. If the craft had decent lighting and had some mirrors aboard:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes...tation04_07.gif
there's no reason to think the crew wouldn't be able to see their reflections.
If we're not moving through "space" then we're sitting motionless and the rest of the universe is moving around us, which you very well may believe to be the case but I do not. Since I don't, I'm convinced that we're moving through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes...tation04_07.gif
there's no reason to think the crew wouldn't be able to see their reflections.
If we're not moving through "space" then we're sitting motionless and the rest of the universe is moving around us, which you very well may believe to be the case but I do not. Since I don't, I'm convinced that we're moving through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.
You did not answer the question asked.
You answered something else that was not what the question asked.
And for our speed, relative to what?
I did answer the question. The speed is relative to many things.
You answered something else that was not what the question asked.
And for our speed, relative to what?
I did answer the question. The speed is relative to many things.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 12 2010, 01:26 PM)
So far I have no reason at all to believe you. Try providing one.
So you don't believe GPS works, Fuckwit David Harrison?
My bad. I assumed you had actually read Einstein. Obviously, you haven't.
So you don't believe GPS works, Fuckwit David Harrison?
QUOTE
How do you think you came up with that claim, do you have any idea?
My bad. I assumed you had actually read Einstein. Obviously, you haven't.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 12 2010, 01:12 PM)
The mirror trick would depend on if and how a person was lit among other things. If the craft had decent lighting and had some mirrors aboard:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes...tation04_07.gif
there's no reason to think the crew wouldn't be able to see their reflections.
If we're not moving through "space" then we're sitting motionless and the rest of the universe is moving around us, which you very well may believe to be the case but I do not. Since I don't, I'm convinced that we're moving through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.
Who said anything about a craft? It's a thought experiment, you are traveling ON a beam of light... (Come on - think!)
You also avoided the other question. How can you tell you are moving through space? But since you avoided it so clumsily... you claim we are moving at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour... OK - relative to what? How can you tell which one is moving?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes...tation04_07.gif
there's no reason to think the crew wouldn't be able to see their reflections.
If we're not moving through "space" then we're sitting motionless and the rest of the universe is moving around us, which you very well may believe to be the case but I do not. Since I don't, I'm convinced that we're moving through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.
Who said anything about a craft? It's a thought experiment, you are traveling ON a beam of light... (Come on - think!)
You also avoided the other question. How can you tell you are moving through space? But since you avoided it so clumsily... you claim we are moving at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour... OK - relative to what? How can you tell which one is moving?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 12 2010, 06:40 PM)
So you don't believe GPS works, Fuckwit David Harrison?
My bad. I assumed you had actually read Einstein. Obviously, you haven't.
Belief or not, you've taught me that you have no idea what you're trying to talk about regarding GPS. You're just parroting something you heard or read someplace, or think you did. You probably don't know exactly what you think you believe about it.
So far what I've read from Einstein reinforces what I've believed for years. Especially something he mentioned in IX.
My bad. I assumed you had actually read Einstein. Obviously, you haven't.
Belief or not, you've taught me that you have no idea what you're trying to talk about regarding GPS. You're just parroting something you heard or read someplace, or think you did. You probably don't know exactly what you think you believe about it.
So far what I've read from Einstein reinforces what I've believed for years. Especially something he mentioned in IX.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 12 2010, 07:07 PM)
Who said anything about a craft? It's a thought experiment, you are traveling ON a beam of light... (Come on - think!)
Without a craft I:
a. would be dead.
b. would be unlikely to have a mirror.
So I thought it through beyond you to start with. What you're really trying to ask is if I was traveling at the same velocity as a group of photons, could THEY somehow allow me to see my reflection in a mirror. You need to specify that you are talking about the particular group of photons that I'm supposedly "traveling ON". Since I would be moving with them to the degree that they would appear stationary then of course not. If they're not moving in relation to myself and the mirror they couldn't get the job done, which is why I mentioned a separate light source. So we see that I not only did answer your question to begin with, but did so in more detail than you were able to comprehend at the time and you still may not be able to. Oh yeah, you should really mention something about the "light" you're referring to too. Like if it's a laser beam it will be all one frequency, and not necessarily within the visible part of the spectrum. Also, you need to make it clear that you're taking it for granted that as we ride along we are traveling at the same velocity as the photons. We could be only up to half of their velocity, in which case the photons would be in motion relative to us, so they would be going past us and could be used to allow us to see our reflection. That is of course unless it's an infrared or UV laser, or something that's not visible to humans. But what if we're traveling at half the velocity of the photons in the beam of a UV laser? With our own combined velocity it would red shift the light coming toward us, possibly down to a visible wavelength, so if that happened would we then be able to see our reflection? The photons would be in motion relative to us, and red shifted to a visible wavelength, so...? I believe the answer is no, and I'll tell you why if you can't figure it out.
Fuckwit plagerist does cut and paste and never actually reads, certainly doesn't understand.
What a waste of protoplasm.
Without a craft I:
a. would be dead.
b. would be unlikely to have a mirror.
So I thought it through beyond you to start with. What you're really trying to ask is if I was traveling at the same velocity as a group of photons, could THEY somehow allow me to see my reflection in a mirror. You need to specify that you are talking about the particular group of photons that I'm supposedly "traveling ON". Since I would be moving with them to the degree that they would appear stationary then of course not. If they're not moving in relation to myself and the mirror they couldn't get the job done, which is why I mentioned a separate light source. So we see that I not only did answer your question to begin with, but did so in more detail than you were able to comprehend at the time and you still may not be able to. Oh yeah, you should really mention something about the "light" you're referring to too. Like if it's a laser beam it will be all one frequency, and not necessarily within the visible part of the spectrum. Also, you need to make it clear that you're taking it for granted that as we ride along we are traveling at the same velocity as the photons. We could be only up to half of their velocity, in which case the photons would be in motion relative to us, so they would be going past us and could be used to allow us to see our reflection. That is of course unless it's an infrared or UV laser, or something that's not visible to humans. But what if we're traveling at half the velocity of the photons in the beam of a UV laser? With our own combined velocity it would red shift the light coming toward us, possibly down to a visible wavelength, so if that happened would we then be able to see our reflection? The photons would be in motion relative to us, and red shifted to a visible wavelength, so...? I believe the answer is no, and I'll tell you why if you can't figure it out.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 12 2010, 07:07 PM)
You also avoided the other question. How can you tell you are moving through space? But since you avoided it so clumsily... you claim we are moving at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour... OK - relative to what? How can you tell which one is moving?
I didn't avoid it. I told you that if we're not moving then everything else is moving around us. Maybe you don't understand that that's the same thing you just wrote above? All motion is relative to whatever else, as I've been pointing out from the beginning. At "best" it looks like you're finally recognising the significance of things I've been pointing out from the start, and have been insulted for mentioning. It's good I learned quickly not to have any confidence in you people or I would have regressed from where I was before I started posting here. I pointed out the significance of the fact that there's no floor of the universe by which we can say anything is truly at rest right from the start, and have understood the significance of that fact for as long as I can remember. Then I got here and people tried to convince me that it's insignificant, among other similar sort of things.
I didn't avoid it. I told you that if we're not moving then everything else is moving around us. Maybe you don't understand that that's the same thing you just wrote above? All motion is relative to whatever else, as I've been pointing out from the beginning. At "best" it looks like you're finally recognising the significance of things I've been pointing out from the start, and have been insulted for mentioning. It's good I learned quickly not to have any confidence in you people or I would have regressed from where I was before I started posting here. I pointed out the significance of the fact that there's no floor of the universe by which we can say anything is truly at rest right from the start, and have understood the significance of that fact for as long as I can remember. Then I got here and people tried to convince me that it's insignificant, among other similar
sort of things.
QUOTE
So far what I've read from Einstein reinforces what I've believed for years. Especially something he mentioned in IX.
Fuckwit plagerist does cut and paste and never actually reads, certainly doesn't understand.
What a waste of protoplasm.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 15 2010, 11:01 AM)
So far what I've read from Einstein reinforces what I've believed for years. Especially something he mentioned in IX.
Reinforcing your own opinions does not require intelligence.
Reinforcing your own opinions does not require intelligence.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 15 2010, 04:28 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
So far what I've read from Einstein reinforces what I've believed for years. Especially something he mentioned in IX.
Reinforcing your own opinions does not require intelligence.
I've been challenging you people to try explaining how I'm wrong if I am, and so far all any of you have been able to do is reinforce my belief that I've been correct all along.
And it's not my fault either.
Oops
Sorry
I got carried away again
It has been explained, Fuckwit. You're just too stupid to understand what you've been told and shown.
Reinforcing your own opinions does not require intelligence.
I've been challenging you people to try explaining how I'm wrong if I am, and so far all any of you have been able to do is reinforce my belief that I've been correct all along.
And it's not my fault either.
Oops
Sorry
I got carried away again
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 15 2010, 02:23 PM)
I've been challenging you people to try explaining how I'm wrong if I am, and so far all any of you have been able to do is reinforce my belief that I've been correct all along.
You won't get very far if life if you insist on the "drive-through/dollar menu" style of learning that you are familiar with. Most things worth knowing can't be communicated in a forum post.
You won't get very far if life if you insist on the "drive-through/dollar menu" style of learning that you are familiar with. Most things worth knowing can't be communicated in a forum post.
QUOTE
I've been challenging you people to try explaining how I'm wrong if I am,
It has been explained, Fuckwit. You're just too stupid to understand what you've been told and shown.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 15 2010, 07:01 PM)
You won't get very far if life if you insist on the "drive-through/dollar menu" style of learning that you are familiar with. Most things worth knowing can't be communicated in a forum post.
The speed of light is constant (unless it changes mediums or direction) relative to the POINT at which is was emitted, not every bit of matter in the universe. The difference in velocity between that point and every bit of matter the light comes in contact with exists, so you need to explain what you want people to think makes it "go away" or whatever. The problem is, as you have so clearly revealed, that you have no idea at all so you can't even begin to make an attempt. The limitation is not with the text editor. The limitation is with you.
The speed of light is constant (unless it changes mediums or direction) relative to the POINT at which is was emitted, not every bit of matter in the universe. The difference in velocity between that point and every bit of matter the light comes in contact with exists, so you need to explain what you want people to think makes it "go away" or whatever. The problem is, as you have so clearly revealed, that you have no idea at all so you can't even begin to make an attempt. The limitation is not with the text editor. The limitation is with you.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 01:03 PM)
The speed of light is constant (unless it changes mediums or direction) relative to the POINT at which is was emitted, not every bit of matter in the universe.
Actually, it is. Every time anyone measures the speed of light, it is ALWAYS going the same speed, regardless of the place/velocity of origin.
We have, but you keep insisting that "time" doesn't exist. Idiot.
We have, but you keep insisting that "time" doesn't exist. Idiot.
The problem is, as you have so clearly revealed, that you have no idea at all so you can't even begin to make an attempt. The limitation is not with the text editor. The limitation is with you.
Your inability to learn is...
Wait for it...
Actually, it is. Every time anyone measures the speed of light, it is ALWAYS going the same speed, regardless of the place/velocity of origin.
QUOTE
The difference in velocity between that point and every bit of matter the light comes in contact with exists, so you need to explain what you want people to think makes it "go away" or whatever.
We have, but you keep insisting that "time" doesn't exist. Idiot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The difference in velocity between that point and every bit of matter the light comes in contact with exists, so you need to explain what you want people to think makes it "go away" or whatever. |
We have, but you keep insisting that "time" doesn't exist. Idiot.
The problem is, as you have so clearly revealed, that you have no idea at all so you can't even begin to make an attempt. The limitation is not with the text editor. The limitation is with you.
Your inability to learn is...
Wait for it...
QUOTE (nopEda the troll+)
NOT MY FAULT
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 16 2010, 05:10 PM)
Every time anyone measures the speed of light, it is ALWAYS going the same speed
Relative to what?
Relative to what?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 15 2010, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I've been challenging you people to try explaining how I'm wrong if I am,
It has been explained.
Try providing some examples.
It has been explained.
Try providing some examples.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 16 2010, 04:49 PM)
Relative to what?
Light always travels at the same exact speed relative to ANY OBSERVER. THAT is what you refuse to get.
ANY OBSERVER
Read this:
ANY OBSERVER
ANY. OBSERVER.
Yes, it doesn't make sense on an intuitive level, but reality is not intuitive.
Light always travels at the same exact speed relative to ANY OBSERVER. THAT is what you refuse to get.
ANY OBSERVER
Read this:
ANY OBSERVER
ANY. OBSERVER.
Yes, it doesn't make sense on an intuitive level, but reality is not intuitive.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 16 2010, 09:35 PM)
Light always travels at the same exact speed relative to ANY OBSERVER. THAT is what you refuse to get.
. . .
Yes, it doesn't make sense
That's one reason I don't accept it. Another one is that blue and red shifting suggest that you're wrong. Another is that section IX in the link to Einstein's writings indicates to me that you're wrong. Another one is that the ONLY thing I've ever seen to indicate that you could possibly be correct, is your own claim that you are. Another thing is that there ARE combined velocities which amount to more than 186 miles per second, so in order to believe your claim a person would have to know what you want them to think happens to all the extra energy which needs to be eliminated in order for your claim to be correct about objects moving toward a light source, and where the needed extra energy would come from in order for you to be correct about objects moving away from a light source.
Until you can explain all of the things above--none of which have you been able to explain yet--then I can't "get" anything out of your claim because there is nothing to get besides a hollow claim that "doesn't make sense". That being the case I go on to consider a possibility that you do not, which is that you're wrong, and then I move on from there to consider what the truth actually is while you remain simply claiming to be right and not getting anywhere at all.
. . .
Yes, it doesn't make sense
That's one reason I don't accept it. Another one is that blue and red shifting suggest that you're wrong. Another is that section IX in the link to Einstein's writings indicates to me that you're wrong. Another one is that the ONLY thing I've ever seen to indicate that you could possibly be correct, is your own claim that you are. Another thing is that there ARE combined velocities which amount to more than 186 miles per second, so in order to believe your claim a person would have to know what you want them to think happens to all the extra energy which needs to be eliminated in order for your claim to be correct about objects moving toward a light source, and where the needed extra energy would come from in order for you to be correct about objects moving away from a light source.
Until you can explain all of the things above--none of which have you been able to explain yet--then I can't "get" anything out of your claim because there is nothing to get besides a hollow claim that "doesn't make sense". That being the case I go on to consider a possibility that you do not, which is that you're wrong, and then I move on from there to consider what the truth actually is while you remain simply claiming to be right and not getting anywhere at all.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 09:25 AM)
Until you can explain all of the things above--none of which have you been able to explain yet--then I can't "get" anything out of your claim because there is nothing to get besides a hollow claim that "doesn't make sense".
See:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
The Stanford scientists also point out what FBM has told you repeatedly:
The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
The problem is our intuition comes from dealing with objects moving at very slow speeds relative to light, and thus they also explain the rather non-intuitive result of this observation:
Length Contraction and Time Dilation
One of the strangest parts of special relativity is the conclusion that two observers who are moving relative to one another, will get different measurements of the length of a particular object or the time that passes between two events.
Arthur
See:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
The Stanford scientists also point out what FBM has told you repeatedly:
The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
The problem is our intuition comes from dealing with objects moving at very slow speeds relative to light, and thus they also explain the rather non-intuitive result of this observation:
Length Contraction and Time Dilation
One of the strangest parts of special relativity is the conclusion that two observers who are moving relative to one another, will get different measurements of the length of a particular object or the time that passes between two events.
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 10:25 AM)
That's one reason I don't accept it. Another one is that blue and red shifting suggest that you're wrong.
You don't even understand spectrum shifting, that's what makes you so pitiful. You cite examples that don't make sense. You don't even try to explain yourself. I could just as well say that the Woolly Mammoth proves your alien god theory wrong. Non-sequitur.
Again, you don't actually understand what you are referencing, so you refer to it as "section IX" because you are unable to summarize its contents.
Again, you don't actually understand what you are referencing, so you refer to it as "section IX" because you are unable to summarize its contents.
Another thing is that there ARE combined velocities which amount to more than 186 miles per second, so in order to believe your claim a person would have to know what you want them to think happens to all the extra energy which needs to be eliminated in order for your claim to be correct about objects moving toward a light source, and where the needed extra energy would come from in order for you to be correct about objects moving away from a light source.
This is simply due to you not understanding Relativity. You can't add velocities that way when you are dealing with extremely high speeds. The velocities just don't add up in the real world. At high speeds, Newtonian physics break down. The problem is that objects traveling at high speeds are undergoing Time Dilation, which makes any observation from the frame of the object inconsistent with observations made from other frames of reference.
Here is the fact that you will not accept:
Time moves at different rates in frames with different velocities or different gravitational potential. The universe is not simultaneous.
Again, you'll probably ignore this and continue to recite the same crap. Are you actually able to have a real conversation without acting like a complete tool? Prove me wrong and actually reply to the statements I made above.
You don't even understand spectrum shifting, that's what makes you so pitiful. You cite examples that don't make sense. You don't even try to explain yourself. I could just as well say that the Woolly Mammoth proves your alien god theory wrong. Non-sequitur.
QUOTE
Another is that section IX in the link to Einstein's writings indicates to me that you're wrong.
Again, you don't actually understand what you are referencing, so you refer to it as "section IX" because you are unable to summarize its contents.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Another is that section IX in the link to Einstein's writings indicates to me that you're wrong. |
Again, you don't actually understand what you are referencing, so you refer to it as "section IX" because you are unable to summarize its contents.
Another thing is that there ARE combined velocities which amount to more than 186 miles per second, so in order to believe your claim a person would have to know what you want them to think happens to all the extra energy which needs to be eliminated in order for your claim to be correct about objects moving toward a light source, and where the needed extra energy would come from in order for you to be correct about objects moving away from a light source.
This is simply due to you not understanding Relativity. You can't add velocities that way when you are dealing with extremely high speeds. The velocities just don't add up in the real world. At high speeds, Newtonian physics break down. The problem is that objects traveling at high speeds are undergoing Time Dilation, which makes any observation from the frame of the object inconsistent with observations made from other frames of reference.
Here is the fact that you will not accept:
Time moves at different rates in frames with different velocities or different gravitational potential. The universe is not simultaneous.
Again, you'll probably ignore this and continue to recite the same crap. Are you actually able to have a real conversation without acting like a complete tool? Prove me wrong and actually reply to the statements I made above.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
You don't even understand spectrum shifting, that's what makes you so pitiful. You cite examples that don't make sense. You don't even try to explain yourself.
I've given my interpertation. Here is someone else's:
________________________________________
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
Doppler Effect in Light: Red Shift & Blue Shift
By Andrew Zimmerman Jones, About.com Guide
Light waves from a moving source experience the Doppler effect to result in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency. This is in a fashion similar (though not identical) to other sorts of waves, such as sound waves. The major difference is that light waves do not require a medium for travel, so the classical application of the Doppler effect doesn't apply precisely to this situation.
Relativistic Doppler Effect for Light
Consider two objects: the light source and the "listener" (or observer). Since light waves traveling in empty space have no medium, we analyze the Doppler effect for light in terms of the motion of the source relative to the listener.
We set up our coordinate system so that the positive direction is from the listener toward the source. So if the source is moving away from the listener, its velocity v is positive, but if it is moving toward the listener, then the v is negative. The listener, in this case, is always considered to be at rest (so v is really the total relative velocity between them). The speed of light c is always considered positive.
The listener receives a frequency fL which would be different from the frequency transmitted by the source fS. This is calculated with relativistic mechanics, by applying necessary the length contraction, and obtains the relationship:
fL = sqrt [(c - v)/(c + v)] * fS
. . .
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
It shows that the velocity between point of emission and observer IS significant as I've been insulted for saying all along.
I've given my interpertation. Here is someone else's:
________________________________________
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
Doppler Effect in Light: Red Shift & Blue Shift
By Andrew Zimmerman Jones, About.com Guide
Light waves from a moving source experience the Doppler effect to result in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency. This is in a fashion similar (though not identical) to other sorts of waves, such as sound waves. The major difference is that light waves do not require a medium for travel, so the classical application of the Doppler effect doesn't apply precisely to this situation.
Relativistic Doppler Effect for Light
Consider two objects: the light source and the "listener" (or observer). Since light waves traveling in empty space have no medium, we analyze the Doppler effect for light in terms of the motion of the source relative to the listener.
We set up our coordinate system so that the positive direction is from the listener toward the source. So if the source is moving away from the listener, its velocity v is positive, but if it is moving toward the listener, then the v is negative. The listener, in this case, is always considered to be at rest (so v is really the total relative velocity between them). The speed of light c is always considered positive.
The listener receives a frequency fL which would be different from the frequency transmitted by the source fS. This is calculated with relativistic mechanics, by applying necessary the length contraction, and obtains the relationship:
fL = sqrt [(c - v)/(c + v)] * fS
. . .
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
It shows that the velocity between point of emission and observer IS significant as I've been insulted for saying all along.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
you refer to it as "section IX" because you are unable to summarize its contents.
________________________________________
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
CONTENTS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD
Albert Einstein (18791955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity
. . .
If an observer sitting in the position M in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
. . .
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
That also tells me the velocity of the observer relative to the point of emission IS relevant.
It is significant for frequency, NOT for the velocity of the light.
It is significant for frequency, NOT for the velocity of the light.
That also tells me the velocity of the observer relative to the point of emission IS relevant.
You've obviously failed to read Chapter VII, where Eintsein writes
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman)
You can't add velocities that way when you are dealing with extremely high speeds. The velocities just don't add up in the real world.
You still have provided no reason to believe that other than your own claim.
Read Chapter XIII. Theorem of the addition of Velocities. The Experiment of Fizeau.
In fact, it's obvious that you haven't read Relativity at all, beyond finding an isolated paragraph which you think makes your point.
________________________________________
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
CONTENTS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD
Albert Einstein (18791955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity
. . .
If an observer sitting in the position M in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
. . .
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
That also tells me the velocity of the observer relative to the point of emission IS relevant.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
You can't add velocities that way when you are dealing with extremely high speeds. The velocities just don't add up in the real world.
You still have provided no reason to believe that other than your own claim. The velocities DO exist and DO have influence. So far we have a couple of things that suggest velocity differences are significant, and nothig at all to suggest that they are not except for your claims.
You still have provided no reason to believe that other than your own claim. The velocities DO exist and DO have influence. So far we have a couple of things that suggest velocity differences are significant, and nothig at all to suggest that they are not except for your claims.
QUOTE
It shows that the velocity between point of emission and observer IS significant as I've been insulted for saying all along.
It is significant for frequency, NOT for the velocity of the light.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It shows that the velocity between point of emission and observer IS significant as I've been insulted for saying all along. |
It is significant for frequency, NOT for the velocity of the light.
That also tells me the velocity of the observer relative to the point of emission IS relevant.
You've obviously failed to read Chapter VII, where Eintsein writes
QUOTE
By means of similar considerations based on observations of double stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By means of similar considerations based on observations of double stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light |
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman)
You can't add velocities that way when you are dealing with extremely high speeds. The velocities just don't add up in the real world.
You still have provided no reason to believe that other than your own claim.
Read Chapter XIII. Theorem of the addition of Velocities. The Experiment of Fizeau.
In fact, it's obvious that you haven't read Relativity at all, beyond finding an isolated paragraph which you think makes your point.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 03:35 PM)
That also tells me the velocity of the observer relative to the point of emission IS relevant.
Yes, the relative velocity IS significant when dealing with Doppler effect, but not when measuring the speed of light.
Try this:
Try this:
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments. The theory of special relativity explores the consequences of the existence of such an invariant speed c and the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. One consequence is that c is the speed at which all massless particles and waves, including light, must travel.
Yes, the relative velocity IS significant when dealing with Doppler effect, but not when measuring the speed of light.
QUOTE
You still have provided no reason to believe that other than your own claim. The velocities DO exist and DO have influence. So far we have a couple of things that suggest velocity differences are significant, and nothig at all to suggest that they are not except for your claims.
Try this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You still have provided no reason to believe that other than your own claim. The velocities DO exist and DO have influence. So far we have a couple of things that suggest velocity differences are significant, and nothig at all to suggest that they are not except for your claims. |
Try this:
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments. The theory of special relativity explores the consequences of the existence of such an invariant speed c and the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. One consequence is that c is the speed at which all massless particles and waves, including light, must travel.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2010, 09:25 AM)
Another thing is that there ARE combined velocities which amount to more than 186 miles per second, so in order to believe your claim a person would have to know what you want them to think happens to all the extra energy which needs to be eliminated in order for your claim to be correct about objects moving toward a light source, and where the needed extra energy would come from in order for you to be correct about objects moving away from a light source.
Nope, no extra energy is involved, that incorrect conclusion is simply based on your lack of understanding of Special Relativity.
Yes, the combined velocity of two objects can equal as much as 2c.
For instance two photons traveling 180 degrees from each other.
However it is also true that the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
Finally, in a non accelerating frame of reference you can't tell if you are moving.
Put that all together and it means that even if I'm moving at any speed you choose and I measure the speed of light emitted from any object (moving or not) I'll still measure the speed of the light it emits to be c.
Which is counter intuitive and does make one wonder how can this be?
And the key is that two observers who are moving relative to one another, will get different measurements of the length of a particular object or the time that passes between two events.
Since speed is distance over time, these differences are what allows the speed of light to always be measured at c.
You don't believe anyone on this forum.
You don't believe Wiki.
Why don't you believe the physists at Stanford who just happen to deal with objects near the speed of light and thus have to take relativistic effects into account?
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
Arthur
Nope, no extra energy is involved, that incorrect conclusion is simply based on your lack of understanding of Special Relativity.
Yes, the combined velocity of two objects can equal as much as 2c.
For instance two photons traveling 180 degrees from each other.
However it is also true that the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
Finally, in a non accelerating frame of reference you can't tell if you are moving.
Put that all together and it means that even if I'm moving at any speed you choose and I measure the speed of light emitted from any object (moving or not) I'll still measure the speed of the light it emits to be c.
Which is counter intuitive and does make one wonder how can this be?
And the key is that two observers who are moving relative to one another, will get different measurements of the length of a particular object or the time that passes between two events.
Since speed is distance over time, these differences are what allows the speed of light to always be measured at c.
You don't believe anyone on this forum.
You don't believe Wiki.
Why don't you believe the physists at Stanford who just happen to deal with objects near the speed of light and thus have to take relativistic effects into account?
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.