If you think time exists then you should be able to explain either:
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.
so please try.
Troll thread.
Do not respond.
Do not respond.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 3 2010, 10:30 AM)
Troll thread.
Do not respond.
Have you ever seen such a FINE example of a FALSE DICHOTOMY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Arthur
Do not respond.
Have you ever seen such a FINE example of a FALSE DICHOTOMY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Arthur
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 3 2010, 03:30 PM)
Troll thread.
Do not respond.
I was very confident that none of the time huggers can make any real attempt to answer basic questions like that, but I didn't expect anyone to be so afraid of them. Apparently there really is no reason to believe it at all...you were told something, you don't know why you believe it, yet you cling to it maniacally
. So much in forums is both amusing and sad at the same time...amusing because it's so 
, and sad because it's so pitiful.
BUT!
I always like to give people ANOTHER opportunity to try to explain what they think they think even after they have given the impression that they don't really have a clue as you have. So here is another chance for you to try to explain what you think you're trying to talk about if you think you have any idea:
If you think time exists then you should be able to explain either:
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.
I wish you good luck
trying to explain what you think you think.
Do not respond.
I was very confident that none of the time huggers can make any real attempt to answer basic questions like that, but I didn't expect anyone to be so afraid of them. Apparently there really is no reason to believe it at all...you were told something, you don't know why you believe it, yet you cling to it maniacally
. So much in forums is both amusing and sad at the same time...amusing because it's so , and sad because it's so pitiful.BUT!
I always like to give people ANOTHER opportunity to try to explain what they think they think even after they have given the impression that they don't really have a clue as you have. So here is another chance for you to try to explain what you think you're trying to talk about if you think you have any idea:If you think time exists then you should be able to explain either:
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.
I wish you good luck
trying to explain what you think you think.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 3 2010, 03:36 PM)
Have you ever seen such a FINE example
You have pretended to believe the more likely possibility that time does not exist in a physical but was a concept developed by humans as clearly appears to be the case. But if you think time speeds up clocks then explain where you think it gets the energy in order to do so, or how you think it does it without using any energy, or whatever you think you have in "mind".
You have pretended to believe the more likely possibility that time does not exist in a physical but was a concept developed by humans as clearly appears to be the case. But if you think time speeds up clocks then explain where you think it gets the energy in order to do so, or how you think it does it without using any energy, or whatever
you think you have in "mind".
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 3 2010, 04:29 PM)
You have pretended to believe the more likely possibility that time does not exist in a physical but was a concept developed by humans as clearly appears to be the case. But if you think time speeds up clocks then explain where you think it gets the energy in order to do so, or how you think it does it without using any energy, or whatever you think you have in "mind".
It doesn't take energy to do anything to the clock.
The clock is unaffected from it's frame of reference.
It's the nonphysical time that changes.
Do you understand how rulers work?
you think you have in "mind". It doesn't take energy to do anything to the clock.
The clock is unaffected from it's frame of reference.
It's the nonphysical time that changes.
Do you understand how rulers work?
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 3 2010, 04:34 PM)
It doesn't take energy to do anything to the clock.
It takes energy to do something to the clock. Also you've led me to believe that you think time is what prevents everything from happening simultaneously, which would require enough energy to restrict everthing in the universe consistently and simultaneously. Considering the huge amounts of energy it would require over such unimaginably vast distances, it sort of seems like it should be easy to explain how it deals with the tiny fraction of energy required to change the performance of clocks and satellites.
It takes energy to do something to the clock. Also you've led me to believe that you think time is what prevents everything from happening simultaneously, which would require enough energy to restrict everthing in the universe consistently and simultaneously. Considering the huge amounts of energy it would require over such unimaginably vast distances, it sort of seems like it should be easy to explain how it deals with the tiny fraction of energy required to change the performance of clocks and satellites.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 3 2010, 04:34 PM)
The clock is unaffected from it's frame of reference.
It's the nonphysical time that changes.
Do you understand how rulers work?
They don't detect anything, and they don't truly measure anything either. They represent an idea. They certainly don't slow clocks down either, any more than time doesn't.
It's the nonphysical time that changes.
Do you understand how rulers work?
They don't detect anything, and they don't truly measure anything either. They represent an idea. They certainly don't slow clocks down either, any more than time doesn't.
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 3 2010, 05:14 PM)
They don't detect anything, and they don't truly measure anything either. They represent an idea. They certainly don't slow clocks down either, any more than time doesn't.
Then how do you measure length of anything?
If I'm asked for two inches of heat shrink tubing, how do I determine how much that is?
Then how do you measure length of anything?
If I'm asked for two inches of heat shrink tubing, how do I determine how much that is?
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 3 2010, 05:22 PM)
Then how do you measure length of anything?
If I'm asked for two inches of heat shrink tubing, how do I determine how much that is?
YOU measure it. The ruler or whatever only represents ideas, and a person uses that representation to do the measuring. Clocks don't measure time either. They represent an idea as well. When clocks slow down it is never because time slowed down and the clocks detected it...
If I'm asked for two inches of heat shrink tubing, how do I determine how much that is?
YOU measure it. The ruler or whatever only represents ideas, and a person uses that representation to do the measuring. Clocks don't measure time either. They represent an idea as well. When clocks slow down it is never because time slowed down and the clocks detected it...
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 3 2010, 05:50 PM)
YOU measure it. The ruler or whatever only represents ideas, and a person uses that representation to do the measuring. Clocks don't measure time either. They represent an idea as well. When clocks slow down it is never because time slowed down and the clocks detected it...
THE REST OF US measure time by noting the number of ticks of a clock.
You should learn how to someday, it's really handy.
THE REST OF US measure time by noting the number of ticks of a clock.
You should learn how to someday, it's really handy.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 3 2010, 06:04 PM)
THE REST OF US measure time by noting the number of ticks of a clock.
Not really.
Not really.
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 3 2010, 03:03 PM)
Not really.
Shall we call for a vote?
Shall we call for a vote?
If I understand the clock-slowing logic, it happens because in lower-gravity or faster velocity situations, the ratio between energy and momentum decreases.
I'm not sure I said this exactly right. What I mean is that the same amount of energy added to an object results in less momentum. Is this what is meant by "time slowing down?"
I'm not sure I said this exactly right. What I mean is that the same amount of energy added to an object results in less momentum. Is this what is meant by "time slowing down?"
You seem to want to be heard and understood. Well and good.
Go and avail yourself of the many articles on Wikipedia relating to SR and GR. If you need help with the definitions of those two terms, perhaps you shouldn't be here arguing...
Go and avail yourself of the many articles on Wikipedia relating to SR and GR. If you need help with the definitions of those two terms, perhaps you shouldn't be here arguing...
Easy to answer your stupid questions NopEda
1. I requires the same energy that an inch requires to be an inch.
2. It influences all matter that same way that length does and uses the same energy.
3. It uses the same energy that length uses to influence all matter everywhere.
Done.
QUOTE
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.
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.
1. I requires the same energy that an inch requires to be an inch.
2. It influences all matter that same way that length does and uses the same energy.
3. It uses the same energy that length uses to influence all matter everywhere.
Done.
nopeda,
in darkness before the sun;
his eyes closed.
in darkness before the sun;
his eyes closed.
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 3 2010, 08:03 PM)
Not really.
Then how do I know when to go home from work?
Then how do I know when to go home from work?
Nice Haiku Soundhertz.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Mar 3 2010, 11:55 PM)
If I understand the clock-slowing logic, it happens because in lower-gravity or faster velocity situations, the ratio between energy and momentum decreases.
I'm not sure I said this exactly right. What I mean is that the same amount of energy added to an object results in less momentum. Is this what is meant by "time slowing down?"
Probably sometimes. It looks like there are a variety of beliefs, but in general it breaks down to people who believe:
a] time exists as a physical thing that influences all matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
and
b] time does not exist as a physical thing at all, but only "exists" as a concept developed by humans.
I agree with b], in part because time has never even been detected much less measured, and also because in order for a] to be true time would have to somehow influence tremendous amounts of energy throughout the entire universe consistently and simultaneously, while if b] is true it wouldn't have to influence any at all.
If a] is true then in your example time may actually literally slow down, or slow other things down, or whatever. If b] is true then time of course has nothing to do with it and the function(s) of the clock are influenced by something OTHER THAN time like gravity, acceleration, momentum...
I'm not sure I said this exactly right. What I mean is that the same amount of energy added to an object results in less momentum. Is this what is meant by "time slowing down?"
Probably sometimes. It looks like there are a variety of beliefs, but in general it breaks down to people who believe:
a] time exists as a physical thing that influences all matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
and
b] time does not exist as a physical thing at all, but only "exists" as a concept developed by humans.
I agree with b], in part because time has never even been detected much less measured, and also because in order for a] to be true time would have to somehow influence tremendous amounts of energy throughout the entire universe consistently and simultaneously, while if b] is true it wouldn't have to influence any at all.
If a] is true then in your example time may actually literally slow down, or slow other things down, or whatever. If b] is true then time of course has nothing to do with it and the function(s) of the clock are influenced by something OTHER THAN time like gravity, acceleration, momentum...
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 4 2010, 06:12 PM)
Probably sometimes. It looks like there are a variety of beliefs, but in general it breaks down to people who believe:
a] time exists as a physical thing that influences all matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
and
b] time does not exist as a physical thing at all, but only "exists" as a concept developed by humans.
I agree with b], in part because time has never even been detected much less measured, and also because in order for a] to be true time would have to somehow influence tremendous amounts of energy throughout the entire universe consistently and simultaneously, while if b] is true it wouldn't have to influence any at all.
If a] is true then in your example time may actually literally slow down, or slow other things down, or whatever. If b] is true then time of course has nothing to do with it and the function(s) of the clock are influenced by something OTHER THAN time like gravity, acceleration, momentum...
And since no one believes a)...
And since you don't understand what we are really saying...
a] time exists as a physical thing that influences all matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
and
b] time does not exist as a physical thing at all, but only "exists" as a concept developed by humans.
I agree with b], in part because time has never even been detected much less measured, and also because in order for a] to be true time would have to somehow influence tremendous amounts of energy throughout the entire universe consistently and simultaneously, while if b] is true it wouldn't have to influence any at all.
If a] is true then in your example time may actually literally slow down, or slow other things down, or whatever. If b] is true then time of course has nothing to do with it and the function(s) of the clock are influenced by something OTHER THAN time like gravity, acceleration, momentum...
And since no one believes a)...
And since you don't understand what we are really saying...
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2010, 01:30 AM)
Then how do I know when to go home from work?
Regardless of how you know, humans can not detect much less can they measure time. Clocks do not measure time either. In fact if time does exist we have no way of knowing what time it actually "is", so even if we do some day learn to detect and measure it IF!!! it exists, we may find out that we have always been wrong about what time it really is
.
But since it doesn't actually exist ....
Regardless of how you know, humans can not detect much less can they measure time. Clocks do not measure time either. In fact if time does exist we have no way of knowing what time it actually "is", so even if we do some day learn to detect and measure it IF!!! it exists, we may find out that we have always been wrong about what time it really is
.But since it doesn't actually exist
....
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 4 2010, 06:21 PM)
Regardless of how you know, humans can not detect much less can they measure time. Clocks do not measure time either. In fact if time does exist we have no way of knowing what time it actually "is", so even if we do some day learn to detect and measure it IF!!! it exists, we may find out that we have always been wrong about what time it really is .
But since it doesn't actually exist ....
One thing we know about it is that it is not physical at least not physical the way you mean the word.
What do we measure with clocks?
We measure length with rulers.
.But since it doesn't actually exist
.... One thing we know about it is that it is not physical at least not physical the way you mean the word.
What do we measure with clocks?
We measure length with rulers.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2010, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda pointed out+)
in general it breaks down to people who believe:
a] time exists as a physical thing that influences all matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
And since no one believes a)...
And since you don't understand what we are really saying...
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
a] time exists as a physical thing that influences all matter in the universe consistently and simultaneously.
And since no one believes a)...
And since you don't understand what we are really saying...
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2010, 06:24 PM)
One thing we know about it is that it is not physical at least not physical the way you mean the word.
That's a pitiful trick but I guess I should have expected it. All this time I've been telling YOU it's not physical, and now that you appear to have become convinced that it's not you're dishonestly going to try to pretend you've been telling me what in reality I've been telling you and you've been trying to refute the entire time.
That's a pitiful trick but I guess I should have expected it. All this time I've been telling YOU it's not physical, and now that you appear to have become convinced that it's not you're dishonestly going to try to pretend you've been telling me what in reality I've been telling you and you've been trying to refute the entire time.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2010, 06:24 PM)
What do we measure with clocks?
We measure length with rulers.
We measure duration with clocks. I can't think of anything else right now. We measure distance with rulers, not just length.
We measure length with rulers.
We measure duration with clocks. I can't think of anything else right now. We measure distance with rulers, not just length.
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 4 2010, 01:34 PM)
We measure duration with clocks. I can't think of anything else right now. We measure distance with rulers, not just length.
duration = time
distance = length
Here's a new word for you: Synonym
duration = time
distance = length
Here's a new word for you: Synonym
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2010, 01:17 PM)
And since no one believes a)...
And since you don't understand what we are really saying...
a) is noballspEda's STRAW MAN.
He created this distorted view of time ON HIS OWN but from now on will claim that this definition of time is what the others on the forum have been claiming.
He started out by saying he didn't believe time exists, but he also makes NO DISTINCTION between TIME as a means of measurement and TIME as something with PHYSICAL PROPERTIES.
So when we say a clock can measure time, he twists this around to claim that we are saying that clocks physically interact with time in order to measure it.
Of course this is not what clocks do, they mearly measure descrete intervals which we assign to named increments, which we relate to the passage of time.
This is going to boil down to 10 days worth of pointless semantics.
Arthur
And since you don't understand what we are really saying...
a) is noballspEda's STRAW MAN.
He created this distorted view of time ON HIS OWN but from now on will claim that this definition of time is what the others on the forum have been claiming.
He started out by saying he didn't believe time exists, but he also makes NO DISTINCTION between TIME as a means of measurement and TIME as something with PHYSICAL PROPERTIES.
So when we say a clock can measure time, he twists this around to claim that we are saying that clocks physically interact with time in order to measure it.
Of course this is not what clocks do, they mearly measure descrete intervals which we assign to named increments, which we relate to the passage of time.
This is going to boil down to 10 days worth of pointless semantics.
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 4 2010, 06:34 PM)
That's a pitiful trick but I guess I should have expected it. All this time I've been telling YOU it's not physical, and now that you appear to have become convinced that it's not you're dishonestly going to try to pretend you've been telling me what in reality I've been telling you and you've been trying to refute the entire time.
We measure duration with clocks. I can't think of anything else right now. We measure distance with rulers, not just length.
And we have not been telling you that it is physical.
But you love false dichotomies.
And think something is either physical or a concept made up by people.
Have you ever seen a mulitple choice quizz?
Do you only read the first answer and if you don't think it's right you circle the second answer? That's how your logic works.
We measure duration with clocks. I can't think of anything else right now. We measure distance with rulers, not just length.
And we have not been telling you that it is physical.
But you love false dichotomies.
And think something is either physical or a concept made up by people.
Have you ever seen a mulitple choice quizz?
Do you only read the first answer and if you don't think it's right you circle the second answer? That's how your logic works.
One minute you say you don't believe time is physical the next minute you do. What way do you want it guys?
Look if your going to stand behind time dialation then your standing behind the idea that time is physical its that simple...
Stop the lies there only funny to people who know the truth.
Look if your going to stand behind time dialation then your standing behind the idea that time is physical its that simple...
Stop the lies there only funny to people who know the truth.
QUOTE (ContOrder+Mar 4 2010, 02:19 PM)
One minute you say you don't believe time is physical the next minute you do. What way do you want it guys?
Look if your going to stand behind time dialation then your standing behind the idea that time is physical its that simple...
Nope.
A clock in a moving frame will be seen to be running slow, or "dilated" according to the Lorentz transformation.
The time will always be shortest as measured in its rest frame.
No need for time to take on physical attributes.
Arthur
Look if your going to stand behind time dialation then your standing behind the idea that time is physical its that simple...
Nope.
A clock in a moving frame will be seen to be running slow, or "dilated" according to the Lorentz transformation.
The time will always be shortest as measured in its rest frame.
No need for time to take on physical attributes.
Arthur
QUOTE (ContOrder+Mar 4 2010, 07:19 PM)
One minute you say you don't believe time is physical the next minute you do. What way do you want it guys?
Look if your going to stand behind time dialation then your standing behind the idea that time is physical its that simple...
Stop the lies there only funny to people who know the truth.
Why does time have to be physical to be dilated?
Look if your going to stand behind time dialation then your standing behind the idea that time is physical its that simple...
Stop the lies there only funny to people who know the truth.
Why does time have to be physical to be dilated?
QUOTE (ContOrder+Mar 4 2010, 07:19 PM)
One minute you say you don't believe time is physical the next minute you do. What way do you want it guys?
Look if your going to stand behind time dialation then your standing behind the idea that time is physical its that simple...
Stop the lies there only funny to people who know the truth.
It looks like most of them who did believe in time as a physical thing are now learning the truth, but they want to pretend that they understood it the whole time and that I did not, even though I was explaining to them that it doesn't exist. Not a very honest group of people, unfortunately. It's probably a cliqueish sort of thing and I know dam* well I'm not part of any. Maybe you're not either. Maybe they'll start trying to pretend that you said time is a physical thing too, even though I don't believe you've wavered on disbelieving that a single bit.
Look if your going to stand behind time dialation then your standing behind the idea that time is physical its that simple...
Stop the lies there only funny to people who know the truth.
It looks like most of them who did believe in time as a physical thing are now learning the truth, but they want to pretend that they understood it the whole time and that I did not, even though I was explaining to them that it doesn't exist. Not a very honest group of people, unfortunately. It's probably a cliqueish sort of thing
and I know dam* well I'm not part of any. Maybe you're not either. Maybe they'll start trying to pretend that you said time is a physical thing too, even though I don't believe you've wavered on disbelieving that a single bit.
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 4 2010, 03:06 PM)
It looks like most of them who did believe in time as a physical thing are now learning the truth,
LIAR
Arthur
LIAR
Arthur
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2010, 07:47 PM)
Why does time have to be physical to be dilated?
That is the related to the question I keep asking but no one answers:
Is there a change in the relationship between energy and momentum, or momentum and velocity, etc. WITHIN the frame of observation due to dilation?
Or is dilation "time-speed change" purely a phenomenon of frame-comparison where intra-frame measurability is impossible?
In other words, what is causing the clocks in orbit to go slower?
If I would have to name a general phenomenon that is responsible for universal progression of matter-energy interactions within a given gravitational context, it would be entropy.
Does speed of entropy = time?
Are there any ways of measuring time except entropy of some system?
edit
I just realized why velocity and gravity are both causes of "time" dilation, I think:
velocity through curved spacetime is always relative to centers of gravity. Therefore velocity always produces centripetal force counter some gravitational attraction. Thus velocity always results in a reduction in gravitation. So, actually velocity and gravitational dilation are the same thing.
That is the related to the question I keep asking but no one answers:
Is there a change in the relationship between energy and momentum, or momentum and velocity, etc. WITHIN the frame of observation due to dilation?
Or is dilation "time-speed change" purely a phenomenon of frame-comparison where intra-frame measurability is impossible?
In other words, what is causing the clocks in orbit to go slower?
If I would have to name a general phenomenon that is responsible for universal progression of matter-energy interactions within a given gravitational context, it would be entropy.
Does speed of entropy = time?
Are there any ways of measuring time except entropy of some system?
edit
I just realized why velocity and gravity are both causes of "time" dilation, I think:
velocity through curved spacetime is always relative to centers of gravity. Therefore velocity always produces centripetal force counter some gravitational attraction. Thus velocity always results in a reduction in gravitation. So, actually velocity and gravitational dilation are the same thing.
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 4 2010, 08:06 PM)
It looks like most of them who did believe in time as a physical thing are now learning the truth,
Which is nobody.
So no victory for you.
Which is nobody.
So no victory for you.
It's no use. He doesn't think he's wrong; he thinks all PhD's in physics are wrong. He doesn't think he lies, and he is a living lie. He thinks everyone changes their minds; only he constantly amends his points. He thinks he is a champion, but he's been pozzed by 5 people - 4 of them in jest. He has one real poz, from Tracer Tong, who pozzed him in pity.
He is an outcast here by consensus, yet he is blind to it.
He puts no stock in anything except what he thinks.
What are we wasting our time for? This is the third thread devoted to this crap.
"Junior, you need to come out from under the covers and get out of bed. You can't stay there forever."
"I'm not in bed! I'm not under the covers! Only you think I am, and I don't believe you!"
"No, Junior, we all think you are."
"No you don't! Only I know what you think!
"We know precisely what we think "
"No you don't! You are wrong! Only I am right!"
and they left and lived their lives, and ignored his screaming from thence forward.
and the bedbugs won.
He is an outcast here by consensus, yet he is blind to it.
He puts no stock in anything except what he thinks.
What are we wasting our time for? This is the third thread devoted to this crap.
"Junior, you need to come out from under the covers and get out of bed. You can't stay there forever."
"I'm not in bed! I'm not under the covers! Only you think I am, and I don't believe you!"
"No, Junior, we all think you are."
"No you don't! Only I know what you think!
"We know precisely what we think "
"No you don't! You are wrong! Only I am right!"
and they left and lived their lives, and ignored his screaming from thence forward.
and the bedbugs won.
light in the tunnel
Actually, no. Those inside a starship going close to lightspeed would see and experience time as if it was normal. It is those watching them go by that would see the effects of relativity on the starship. Those inside the spacecraft would see that time had greatly speeded up in the Universe and all the stars ahead of them were blue, those behind red.
Actually, no. Those inside a starship going close to lightspeed would see and experience time as if it was normal. It is those watching them go by that would see the effects of relativity on the starship. Those inside the spacecraft would see that time had greatly speeded up in the Universe and all the stars ahead of them were blue, those behind red.
Does speed of entropy = time?
Are there any ways of measuring time except entropy of some system?
Good questions. I think a unit of time is a measurement of a duration like a meter is a measurement of distance. Is a meter a physical thing? You can have a meter stick, but it is physically a stick a meter in length. A second in time is a measure of our passage through the dimension of time just like a meter is a measure of our movement in the three space dimensions. We invented what we call our units, but we did not invent the dimensions of space/time.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Is there a change in the relationship between energy and momentum, or momentum and velocity, etc. WITHIN the frame of observation due to dilation?
Actually, no. Those inside a starship going close to lightspeed would see and experience time as if it was normal. It is those watching them go by that would see the effects of relativity on the starship. Those inside the spacecraft would see that time had greatly speeded up in the Universe and all the stars ahead of them were blue, those behind red.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is there a change in the relationship between energy and momentum, or momentum and velocity, etc. WITHIN the frame of observation due to dilation? |
Actually, no. Those inside a starship going close to lightspeed would see and experience time as if it was normal. It is those watching them go by that would see the effects of relativity on the starship. Those inside the spacecraft would see that time had greatly speeded up in the Universe and all the stars ahead of them were blue, those behind red.
Does speed of entropy = time?
Are there any ways of measuring time except entropy of some system?
Good questions. I think a unit of time is a measurement of a duration like a meter is a measurement of distance. Is a meter a physical thing? You can have a meter stick, but it is physically a stick a meter in length. A second in time is a measure of our passage through the dimension of time just like a meter is a measure of our movement in the three space dimensions. We invented what we call our units, but we did not invent the dimensions of space/time.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 4 2010, 10:08 PM)
I think a unit of time is a measurement of a duration like a meter is a measurement of distance. Is a meter a physical thing? You can have a meter stick, but it is physically a stick a meter in length. A second in time is a measure of our passage through the dimension of time just like a meter is a measure of our movement in the three space dimensions. We invented what we call our units, but we did not invent the dimensions of space/time.
Grumpy
You say time can slow clocks down or whatever, so you must believe it exists as a physical thing. You might end up changing your position on that one, since it appears everyone else did.
Grumpy
You say time can slow clocks down or whatever, so you must believe it exists as a physical thing. You might end up changing your position on that one, since it appears everyone else did.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 4 2010, 10:08 PM)
Actually, no. Those inside a starship going close to lightspeed would see and experience time as if it was normal. It is those watching them go by that would see the effects of relativity on the starship. Those inside the spacecraft would see that time had greatly speeded up in the Universe and all the stars ahead of them were blue, those behind red.
Ok, that contextualizes it. Now what I'm trying to figure out is what relationship there is between different speeds of time according to gravity/velocity situation. For example, from Earth it appears that it takes neptune 165 years to orbit the sun, but at the degree of solar-gravity dilation where neptune is, time must go much slower than at Earth's distance. So a person living in orbit around neptune would observe Earth life occurring at an accelerated rate and, therefore, would outlive someone who attains the same age in Earth orbit?
Length or distance is the result of the density and tensile properties of a given substance/object in a particular state. It is a quantity, not a rate.
When you measure time as a general dimension, don't you have to assume the ratios between various events will be uniform. For example, if there are 365 days in a year and 24x60 minutes in a day and 60 ticks of a clock in a second, then if the ratio of clock-ticks to minutes changes in orbit, then time isn't a uniform dimension for the two clocks, right?
Entropy, however is a concrete continuity within any system rather than an abstracted dimension. I think that entropy describes the decay of an atom as well as the pulsation of a quartz crystal or the movement of sand through an hour-glass. So instead of conceptualizing time as a generally applicable dimension without material basis, wouldn't it make more sense to conceptualize entropy as the material progress made by a system when left to its own forces?
Of course, entropy can be influenced whereas time is assumably inflexible. It seems to me that the only reason time is so inflexible, though, is because it is defined according to the most inflexible instance of entropy possible. Earth days and years seem currently less flexible than the rate of atomic decay, but as interplanetary travel becomes more common, a more stable standard might be sought, no?
Ok, that contextualizes it. Now what I'm trying to figure out is what relationship there is between different speeds of time according to gravity/velocity situation. For example, from Earth it appears that it takes neptune 165 years to orbit the sun, but at the degree of solar-gravity dilation where neptune is, time must go much slower than at Earth's distance. So a person living in orbit around neptune would observe Earth life occurring at an accelerated rate and, therefore, would outlive someone who attains the same age in Earth orbit?
QUOTE
Good questions. I think a unit of time is a measurement of a duration like a meter is a measurement of distance. Is a meter a physical thing? You can have a meter stick, but it is physically a stick a meter in length. A second in time is a measure of our passage through the dimension of time just like a meter is a measure of our movement in the three space dimensions. We invented what we call our units, but we did not invent the dimensions of space/time.
Length or distance is the result of the density and tensile properties of a given substance/object in a particular state. It is a quantity, not a rate.
When you measure time as a general dimension, don't you have to assume the ratios between various events will be uniform. For example, if there are 365 days in a year and 24x60 minutes in a day and 60 ticks of a clock in a second, then if the ratio of clock-ticks to minutes changes in orbit, then time isn't a uniform dimension for the two clocks, right?
Entropy, however is a concrete continuity within any system rather than an abstracted dimension. I think that entropy describes the decay of an atom as well as the pulsation of a quartz crystal or the movement of sand through an hour-glass. So instead of conceptualizing time as a generally applicable dimension without material basis, wouldn't it make more sense to conceptualize entropy as the material progress made by a system when left to its own forces?
Of course, entropy can be influenced whereas time is assumably inflexible. It seems to me that the only reason time is so inflexible, though, is because it is defined according to the most inflexible instance of entropy possible. Earth days and years seem currently less flexible than the rate of atomic decay, but as interplanetary travel becomes more common, a more stable standard might be sought, no?
nopeda, for all I know you're a nice and enjoyable person to hang out with.
It is very frustrating to all who were trying to explain time dilation, and being ridiculed for it. You must realize that you're disbelieving in the same kind of scientifically methodological proofs that also clearly define everything else that you do believe in. I'm saying you have arrived at your conclusion subjectively, not objectively. And that the laws of relativity that affect space not only affect time, the laws of relativity must affect time for 3D+t reality to function.
Try this:
http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/physical_scie...e_dilation.html
That the laws of relativity do dictate to the passage of events in time, as they dictate to the movement of events thru space,
that this time dilation was predicted to near perfect mathematical accuracy by Einstein,
that the subsequent experiments by scientists breathless to actually see what the data would yield - and out of breath when they saw it!! proved it,
that Einstein was once again proven spot on, in yet another overwhelmingly difficult area,
that further physics calculations utilize time dilation,
and finally that entire billion dollar industries depend on time dilation,
should at least cause you to search more carefully and fairly than just your own intuition, especially when information is so accessible.
Yes, and even if one can 'travel to the past', which i disbelieve in so far, they would still be in their present, because you can only be in the present. But events in the past have results in the present; you still can't get near Chernobyl safely.
Yes, and even if one can 'travel to the past', which i disbelieve in so far, they would still be in their present, because you can only be in the present. But events in the past have results in the present; you still can't get near Chernobyl safely. I think that if you're brain was not trained to organize distinct memories and images in terms of sequence, you would have just an enormous quantity of similarities, like if you would cut up a film reel into all separate frames and then try to make sense of them.
It is very frustrating to all who were trying to explain time dilation, and being ridiculed for it. You must realize that you're disbelieving in the same kind of scientifically methodological proofs that also clearly define everything else that you do believe in. I'm saying you have arrived at your conclusion subjectively, not objectively. And that the laws of relativity that affect space not only affect time, the laws of relativity must affect time for 3D+t reality to function.
Try this:
http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/physical_scie...e_dilation.html
That the laws of relativity do dictate to the passage of events in time, as they dictate to the movement of events thru space,
that this time dilation was predicted to near perfect mathematical accuracy by Einstein,
that the subsequent experiments by scientists breathless to actually see what the data would yield - and out of breath when they saw it!! proved it,
that Einstein was once again proven spot on, in yet another overwhelmingly difficult area,
that further physics calculations utilize time dilation,
and finally that entire billion dollar industries depend on time dilation,
should at least cause you to search more carefully and fairly than just your own intuition, especially when information is so accessible.
QUOTE
Those inside a starship going close to lightspeed would see and experience time as if it was normal. It is those watching them go by that would see the effects of relativity on the starship.
I'm curious about this. Assuming we could view it thru a tracking telescope, what would it look like as it cruised across, if we could observe it from far enough away to watch it for a few seconds? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Those inside a starship going close to lightspeed would see and experience time as if it was normal. It is those watching them go by that would see the effects of relativity on the starship. |
I'm curious about this. Assuming we could view it thru a tracking telescope, what would it look like as it cruised across, if we could observe it from far enough away to watch it for a few seconds? A second in time is a measure of our passage through the dimension of time
Planck time is ~ 5.4 × 10−44 seconds. From here no one yet knows. But there is no reason to believe Planck size has to be a limit, and no reason Planck time can't be parsed. These may yet be limits, but the present arguments aren't proven.
I wonder that what we call an 'instant' is non-time, in that an instant actually has no start and end point, it simply is a point of passage of the timeline of events, and when each instant occurs there is no other instant but that, and the addition of these non-time points then allows for measurement of the passage, and allows for 'living in time' as opposed to 'living in the moment'. Living in time entails memory of what came before. Living in the moment is not something we can accurately define via experience. But yet, all we are aware of is the present. We feel the passage of time, but we exist only in the present, because there is only one moment at a time. We are on the time-line, not in the dimension of time. If we were in the dimension of time we would be in our past concurrently with our present; it would not be consecutive. We move through the "spacious present" - that which is the ongoing sum of all moments thus far - one moment at a time. And each successive present instant is the only one we reside in. Regardless of our ability to measure the movement of the timeline through this spacious present, all exists strictly on a 'momentous' scale
We can measure time, but we don't live in it, we live in the present, that which is unmeasurable and timeless, yet adds up to = time. We + our past = time, but the we of 'here-and-now' is purely present, purely instantaneous.
Well..
so if my wonderment is true, then can we deduce that the present is not conceptual but real, and a pre-requisite for the dimension that enables time flow? Because if this is the case, it existed already. It was existing when the universe hadn't yet expanded, since the universe was existing. The universe very likely wasn't existing in time yet, unless dimensionality was existing already as some sort of quantum genetic code, but the present doesn't depend on time, timelines need the timeless points of the instant. So is the present an absolute? Is it a real thing that a pre-universe requires?
Or is the present nothing but a concept?
Though it is as equally hard to say there is no present as it is to say there is no past. But then again physics, especially the quantum variety, isn't very intuitive now, is it?
Planck time is ~ 5.4 × 10−44 seconds. From here no one yet knows. But there is no reason to believe Planck size has to be a limit, and no reason Planck time can't be parsed. These may yet be limits, but the present arguments aren't proven.
I wonder that what we call an 'instant' is non-time, in that an instant actually has no start and end point, it simply is a point of passage of the timeline of events, and when each instant occurs there is no other instant but that, and the addition of these non-time points then allows for measurement of the passage, and allows for 'living in time' as opposed to 'living in the moment'. Living in time entails memory of what came before. Living in the moment is not something we can accurately define via experience. But yet, all we are aware of is the present. We feel the passage of time, but we exist only in the present, because there is only one moment at a time. We are on the time-line, not in the dimension of time. If we were in the dimension of time we would be in our past concurrently with our present; it would not be consecutive. We move through the "spacious present" - that which is the ongoing sum of all moments thus far - one moment at a time. And each successive present instant is the only one we reside in. Regardless of our ability to measure the movement of the timeline through this spacious present, all exists strictly on a 'momentous' scale
We can measure time, but we don't live in it, we live in the present, that which is unmeasurable and timeless, yet adds up to = time. We + our past = time, but the we of 'here-and-now' is purely present, purely instantaneous.Well..
so if my wonderment is true, then can we deduce that the present is not conceptual but real, and a pre-requisite for the dimension that enables time flow? Because if this is the case, it existed already. It was existing when the universe hadn't yet expanded, since the universe was existing. The universe very likely wasn't existing in time yet, unless dimensionality was existing already as some sort of quantum genetic code, but the present doesn't depend on time, timelines need the timeless points of the instant. So is the present an absolute? Is it a real thing that a pre-universe requires?
Or is the present nothing but a concept?
Though it is as equally hard to say there is no present as it is to say there is no past. But then again physics, especially the quantum variety, isn't very intuitive now, is it?
QUOTE
then if the ratio of clock-ticks to minutes changes in orbit, then time isn't a uniform dimension for the two clocks, right?
clock ticks to minutes will remain true, the intervals between the seconds, minutes, hours, etc. would differ between the ground and orbit. it's only the intervals that change; that's the 'dilation'. If you were away for 20 years traveling at c, your watch and you remains normal-you age 20 years. To your twin on earth, well they'd have been gone for a while.
[QUOTE=soundhertz,Mar 5 2010, 01:39 AM]
That the laws of relativity do dictate to the passage of events in time, as they dictate to the movement of events thru space,
that this time dilation was predicted to near perfect mathematical accuracy by Einstein,
that the subsequent experiments by scientists breathless to actually see what the data would yield - and out of breath when they saw it!! proved it,
that Einstein was once again proven spot on, in yet another overwhelmingly difficult area,
that further physics calculations utilize time dilation,
and finally that entire billion dollar industries depend on time dilation,
should at least cause you to search more carefully and fairly than just your own intuition, especially when information is so accessible.
[/QUOTE]
Did Einstein prove the existence and behavior of "time" or did he just create a model that predicted the behavior of matter-energy more accurately relatively to each other in different force contexts?
[QUOTE]I wonder that what we call an 'instant' is non-time, in that an instant actually has no start and end point, it simply is a point of passage of the timeline of events, and when each instant occurs there is no other instant but that, and the addition of these non-time points then allows for measurement of the passage, and allows for 'living in time' as opposed to 'living in the moment'. Living in time entails memory of what came before. Living in the moment is not something we can accurately define via experience. But yet, all we are aware of is the present. We feel the passage of time, but we exist only in the present, because there is only one moment at a time. We are on the time-line, not in the dimension of time. If we were in the dimension of time we would be in our past concurrently with our present; it would not be consecutive. We move through the "spacious present" - that which is the ongoing sum of all moments thus far - one moment at a time. And each successive present instant is the only one we reside in. Regardless of our ability to measure the movement of the timeline through this spacious present, all exists strictly on a 'momentous' scale We can measure time, but we don't live in it, we live in the present, that which is unmeasurable and timeless, yet adds up to = time. We + our past = time, but the we of 'here-and-now' is purely present, purely instantaneous.[/QUOTE]
Very well written and interesting. Have you considered that the things you use to subjectively reference "the past" in the present, such as memories, photographs, etc. all actually exist as current configurations of matter-energy (i.e. neural cells or ink on paper) that you compare with other configurations that you define as present-perception? I think that if you're brain was not trained to organize distinct memories and images in terms of sequence, you would have just an enormous quantity of similarities, like if you would cut up a film reel into all separate frames and then try to make sense of them.
The fact that your mind keeps track of memories in sequence is very impressive indeed, but is it the product of "time?" Don't you have memories where you can't figure out if one came before the other or vice versa? So when you are "measuring" time and making markers to classify things into distinct moments? If you photograph a sundial every hour for five hours, don't you just end up with five slightly different photos of the sundial? The light-energy that produced each photograph by changing the chemical structure of the film has not frozen time by converting light into chemical potential, has it?
[QUOTE]clock ticks to minutes will remain true, the intervals between the seconds, minutes, hours, etc. would differ between the ground and orbit. it's only the intervals that change; that's the 'dilation'. If you were away for 20 years traveling at c, your watch and you remains normal-you age 20 years. To your twin on earth, well they'd have been gone for a while.[/QUOTE]
Does "gone for a while" mean a longer or shorter while than 20 years? How long exactly, not that you could actually travel at C? It seems like it wouldn't matter, though, because even at sub C speeds in low-gravity areas, time slows down significantly (or only slightly?). This is the part I wish I could do complex math.
[quote]Well..
so if my wonderment is true, then can we deduce that the present is not conceptual but real, and a pre-requisite for the dimension that enables time flow? Because if this is the case, it existed already. It was existing when the universe hadn't yet expanded, since the universe was existing. The universe very likely wasn't existing in time yet, unless dimensionality was existing already as some sort of quantum genetic code, but the present doesn't depend on time, timelines need the timeless points of the instant. So is the present an absolute? Is it a real thing that a pre-universe requires? [/quote]
Is motion a prerequisite for the dimension measured as "length?" The dimension doesn't exist except to the extent it is applied by humans for measurement. Outside of human acts of measurement, things don't have dimensions - they just do what they do while we do what we do.
Any situation in which entropy is occurring can be attributed a temporal dimension, correct? Therefore, how could there ever have been a situation where time did not "exist?"
[quote]Or is the present nothing but a concept?
Though it is as equally hard to say there is no present as it is to say there is no past. But then again physics, especially the quantum variety, isn't very intuitive now, is it?[/quote]
Everything is a concept when you're conceptualizing it, no? Perceptions are generated through matter-energy interactions with otherwise undefinable events. A photograph is made by exposing chemical film or digital sensors to light. For a photograph to be a recognizable image, you have to focus the lens a certain way, prevent under or over exposure, etc. Those parameters you set on the camera to make a good photo are the equivalent of concepts.[/quote]
Concepts aren't true, false, or in/accurate in themselves - only in how they are applied. Furthermore, you can't say that because a photograph is blurry that the focus of the camera doesn't work. The photographer might not have known how it worked.
That the laws of relativity do dictate to the passage of events in time, as they dictate to the movement of events thru space,
that this time dilation was predicted to near perfect mathematical accuracy by Einstein,
that the subsequent experiments by scientists breathless to actually see what the data would yield - and out of breath when they saw it!! proved it,
that Einstein was once again proven spot on, in yet another overwhelmingly difficult area,
that further physics calculations utilize time dilation,
and finally that entire billion dollar industries depend on time dilation,
should at least cause you to search more carefully and fairly than just your own intuition, especially when information is so accessible.
[/QUOTE]
Did Einstein prove the existence and behavior of "time" or did he just create a model that predicted the behavior of matter-energy more accurately relatively to each other in different force contexts?
[QUOTE]I wonder that what we call an 'instant' is non-time, in that an instant actually has no start and end point, it simply is a point of passage of the timeline of events, and when each instant occurs there is no other instant but that, and the addition of these non-time points then allows for measurement of the passage, and allows for 'living in time' as opposed to 'living in the moment'. Living in time entails memory of what came before. Living in the moment is not something we can accurately define via experience. But yet, all we are aware of is the present. We feel the passage of time, but we exist only in the present, because there is only one moment at a time. We are on the time-line, not in the dimension of time. If we were in the dimension of time we would be in our past concurrently with our present; it would not be consecutive. We move through the "spacious present" - that which is the ongoing sum of all moments thus far - one moment at a time. And each successive present instant is the only one we reside in. Regardless of our ability to measure the movement of the timeline through this spacious present, all exists strictly on a 'momentous' scale
We can measure time, but we don't live in it, we live in the present, that which is unmeasurable and timeless, yet adds up to = time. We + our past = time, but the we of 'here-and-now' is purely present, purely instantaneous.[/QUOTE]Very well written and interesting. Have you considered that the things you use to subjectively reference "the past" in the present, such as memories, photographs, etc. all actually exist as current configurations of matter-energy (i.e. neural cells or ink on paper) that you compare with other configurations that you define as present-perception? I think that if you're brain was not trained to organize distinct memories and images in terms of sequence, you would have just an enormous quantity of similarities, like if you would cut up a film reel into all separate frames and then try to make sense of them.
The fact that your mind keeps track of memories in sequence is very impressive indeed, but is it the product of "time?" Don't you have memories where you can't figure out if one came before the other or vice versa? So when you are "measuring" time and making markers to classify things into distinct moments? If you photograph a sundial every hour for five hours, don't you just end up with five slightly different photos of the sundial? The light-energy that produced each photograph by changing the chemical structure of the film has not frozen time by converting light into chemical potential, has it?
[QUOTE]clock ticks to minutes will remain true, the intervals between the seconds, minutes, hours, etc. would differ between the ground and orbit. it's only the intervals that change; that's the 'dilation'. If you were away for 20 years traveling at c, your watch and you remains normal-you age 20 years. To your twin on earth, well they'd have been gone for a while.[/QUOTE]
Does "gone for a while" mean a longer or shorter while than 20 years? How long exactly, not that you could actually travel at C? It seems like it wouldn't matter, though, because even at sub C speeds in low-gravity areas, time slows down significantly (or only slightly?). This is the part I wish I could do complex math.
[quote]Well..
so if my wonderment is true, then can we deduce that the present is not conceptual but real, and a pre-requisite for the dimension that enables time flow? Because if this is the case, it existed already. It was existing when the universe hadn't yet expanded, since the universe was existing. The universe very likely wasn't existing in time yet, unless dimensionality was existing already as some sort of quantum genetic code, but the present doesn't depend on time, timelines need the timeless points of the instant. So is the present an absolute? Is it a real thing that a pre-universe requires? [/quote]
Is motion a prerequisite for the dimension measured as "length?" The dimension doesn't exist except to the extent it is applied by humans for measurement. Outside of human acts of measurement, things don't have dimensions - they just do what they do while we do what we do.
Any situation in which entropy is occurring can be attributed a temporal dimension, correct? Therefore, how could there ever have been a situation where time did not "exist?"
[quote]Or is the present nothing but a concept?
Though it is as equally hard to say there is no present as it is to say there is no past. But then again physics, especially the quantum variety, isn't very intuitive now, is it?[/quote]
Everything is a concept when you're conceptualizing it, no? Perceptions are generated through matter-energy interactions with otherwise undefinable events. A photograph is made by exposing chemical film or digital sensors to light. For a photograph to be a recognizable image, you have to focus the lens a certain way, prevent under or over exposure, etc. Those parameters you set on the camera to make a good photo are the equivalent of concepts.[/quote]
Concepts aren't true, false, or in/accurate in themselves - only in how they are applied. Furthermore, you can't say that because a photograph is blurry that the focus of the camera doesn't work. The photographer might not have known how it worked.
QUOTE
Have you considered that the things you use to subjectively reference "the past" in the present, such as memories, photographs, etc. all actually exist as current configurations of matter-energy
Yes, and even if one can 'travel to the past', which i disbelieve in so far, they would still be in their present, because you can only be in the present. But events in the past have results in the present; you still can't get near Chernobyl safely.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Have you considered that the things you use to subjectively reference "the past" in the present, such as memories, photographs, etc. all actually exist as current configurations of matter-energy |
Yes, and even if one can 'travel to the past', which i disbelieve in so far, they would still be in their present, because you can only be in the present. But events in the past have results in the present; you still can't get near Chernobyl safely. I think that if you're brain was not trained to organize distinct memories and images in terms of sequence, you would have just an enormous quantity of similarities, like if you would cut up a film reel into all separate frames and then try to make sense of them.
That seems reasonable enough. The 'training' I would think is a natural result of evolution; we see it in things like animal migration, and with animals that seemingly don't have great short-term memory. ie, squirrels never remember where they buried their acorns; that's why they'll dig up your flowerbeds to the order of many holes for one acorn. Yet hav-a-hart a squirrel, release it up to 5 miles away, and right back to your very yard it will return.
QUOTE
Did Einstein prove the existence and behavior of "time" or did he just create a model that predicted the behavior of matter-energy more accurately relatively to each other in different force contexts?
If I understand this question, both. He certainly was acutely aware of the relationship between mass, energy, velocity, and time. I believe he required all four to deduce their relationships.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did Einstein prove the existence and behavior of "time" or did he just create a model that predicted the behavior of matter-energy more accurately relatively to each other in different force contexts? |
If I understand this question, both. He certainly was acutely aware of the relationship between mass, energy, velocity, and time. I believe he required all four to deduce their relationships.Does "gone for a while" mean a longer or shorter while than 20 years? How long exactly, not that you could actually travel at C? It seems like it wouldn't matter, though, because even at sub C speeds in low-gravity areas, time slows down significantly (or only slightly?). This is the part I wish I could do complex math. smile.gif
I think the easiest way to answer that is by saying biological time matches atomic time according to Einstein. So when you are traveling close to or at c you are aging far slower than your relative contemporaries. Some have said that there is a 'basic time': one that exists under no gravitational influence and no velocity. Although even that is still relative, and Einstein's whole point is that under relativity, everyone's/every thing's time is equally valid.
No one else finds my post interesting enough to comment? nopeda dissing Einstein is more interesting?
And I thought I had something provocative here...
QUOTE
Everything is a concept when you're conceptualizing it, no?
But some concepts happen to be the truth, some are not, and some are outright idiocy, and the conceptualizer does not know until the concept is proven.No one else finds my post interesting enough to comment? nopeda dissing Einstein is more interesting?
And I thought I had something provocative here...
QUOTE (soundhertz+Mar 6 2010, 05:08 AM)
Yes, and even if one can 'travel to the past', which i disbelieve in so far, they would still be in their present, because you can only be in the present. But events in the past have results in the present; you still can't get near Chernobyl safely.
So all that proves is that the present has inertia despite the fact that it's constantly changing. Describing it as "the past becomes the present" seems a lot like saying, "memories become immediate experience."
lol. I never thought about the irony in that. Although the problem with the acorns is probably that they bury so many, they just get confused. If they went in 20 different trees or attics per day, they'd probably get confused which one(s) they made a nest in too, I'm guessing.
lol. I never thought about the irony in that. Although the problem with the acorns is probably that they bury so many, they just get confused. If they went in 20 different trees or attics per day, they'd probably get confused which one(s) they made a nest in too, I'm guessing.
.If I understand this question, both. He certainly was acutely aware of the relationship between mass, energy, velocity, and time. I believe he required all four to deduce their relationships.I think the easiest way to answer that is by saying biological time matches atomic time according to Einstein.
The question is whether Einstein was doing epistemology. It seems like he had to to deliver physics out of a straight-line grid (cartesian?) fixation. The thing that confuses me is how it is even possible to think in terms of curves without defining them relative to a straight-line. If all straight-lines are relatively curved in spacetime, shouldn't curvature be the standard? Does the horizon appear straight because it is or because we are trained to see it as straight?
My crank mind still questions how certain we can be about interstellar distances through relative spacetime. After all, if time slows down as velocity approaches C, and there is no limit to how close to C velocity can accelerate, then velocity itself becomes relative to the length of a second, no? Or does the speed of light in m/s refer to some standardized second at sea-level or something?
You're right about the conceptualizer not being able to know the truth without proof, and unfortunately too often those who have experienced truth, either through proof or authority, grow quickly impatient with those who continue to be unsatisfied and seek greater conviction. Hence the social compulsion and bullying to accept authority.
So all that proves is that the present has inertia despite the fact that it's constantly changing. Describing it as "the past becomes the present" seems a lot like saying, "memories become immediate experience."
QUOTE
That seems reasonable enough. The 'training' I would think is a natural result of evolution; we see it in things like animal migration, and with animals that seemingly don't have great short-term memory. ie, squirrels never remember where they buried their acorns; that's why they'll dig up your flowerbeds to the order of many holes for one acorn. Yet hav-a-hart a squirrel, release it up to 5 miles away, and right back to your very yard it will return
lol. I never thought about the irony in that. Although the problem with the acorns is probably that they bury so many, they just get confused. If they went in 20 different trees or attics per day, they'd probably get confused which one(s) they made a nest in too, I'm guessing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That seems reasonable enough. The 'training' I would think is a natural result of evolution; we see it in things like animal migration, and with animals that seemingly don't have great short-term memory. ie, squirrels never remember where they buried their acorns; that's why they'll dig up your flowerbeds to the order of many holes for one acorn. Yet hav-a-hart a squirrel, release it up to 5 miles away, and right back to your very yard it will return |
lol. I never thought about the irony in that. Although the problem with the acorns is probably that they bury so many, they just get confused. If they went in 20 different trees or attics per day, they'd probably get confused which one(s) they made a nest in too, I'm guessing.
.If I understand this question, both. He certainly was acutely aware of the relationship between mass, energy, velocity, and time. I believe he required all four to deduce their relationships.I think the easiest way to answer that is by saying biological time matches atomic time according to Einstein.
The question is whether Einstein was doing epistemology. It seems like he had to to deliver physics out of a straight-line grid (cartesian?) fixation. The thing that confuses me is how it is even possible to think in terms of curves without defining them relative to a straight-line. If all straight-lines are relatively curved in spacetime, shouldn't curvature be the standard? Does the horizon appear straight because it is or because we are trained to see it as straight?
QUOTE
So when you are traveling close to or at c you are aging far slower than your relative contemporaries. Some have said that there is a 'basic time': one that exists under no gravitational influence and no velocity. Although even that is still relative, and Einstein's whole point is that under relativity, everyone's/every thing's time is equally valid.But some concepts happen to be the truth, some are not, and some are outright idiocy, and the conceptualizer does not know until the concept is proven.
My crank mind still questions how certain we can be about interstellar distances through relative spacetime. After all, if time slows down as velocity approaches C, and there is no limit to how close to C velocity can accelerate, then velocity itself becomes relative to the length of a second, no? Or does the speed of light in m/s refer to some standardized second at sea-level or something?
You're right about the conceptualizer not being able to know the truth without proof, and unfortunately too often those who have experienced truth, either through proof or authority, grow quickly impatient with those who continue to be unsatisfied and seek greater conviction. Hence the social compulsion and bullying to accept authority.
I don't usually answer physics questions, being such a layman in it, and you would do better asking true physicists here. So having given you the caveat emptor, I will answer these questions to a point, since I do know some of this.
QUOTE
Describing it as "the past becomes the present" seems a lot like saying, "memories become immediate experience."
Actually, what happens in the present becomes the past. The present can't become anything. It is when events happen. It is not the events themselves. And if one is 'traveling back in time', which I disbelieve in, they are not reliving memories, they are reliving events. The events came first, the memories followed. Memories are postcards of the past, and they are not necessarily accurate either, because they are in the mind only, and subject to modification. Especially in women QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Describing it as "the past becomes the present" seems a lot like saying, "memories become immediate experience." |
Actually, what happens in the present becomes the past. The present can't become anything. It is when events happen. It is not the events themselves. And if one is 'traveling back in time', which I disbelieve in, they are not reliving memories, they are reliving events. The events came first, the memories followed. Memories are postcards of the past, and they are not necessarily accurate either, because they are in the mind only, and subject to modification. Especially in women Does the horizon appear straight because it is or because we are trained to see it as straight?
Does the horizon appear straight because it is or because we are trained to see it as straight?Well, first of all Einstein was pure genius. He thought in depth like very few of us can. Even if we could be intimate with the math, still we can't behold reality like he did because we are not of his caliber.
The horizon looks straight because earth is nearly 8,000 miles in diameter, and you are most likely less than 7' tall. But the farther you travel upwards, the more discernible the horizon is. Wiki has the equation for it. It's a high school level equation-3 variables.
Concerning gauging distances, astronomers use parallax shift, which involves relative positions of multiple stars during earth's revolution. It's sketchier calculating extreme distances, but there are stars called cepheids that astronomers use as distance points. Luckily they are nicely scattered about in every galaxy, and thankfully they are big and bright. They are precisely variable in light pulsation or fluctuation (they are not pulsars) and this variability gives astronomers a gauge to determine distances for everything 'around' them. For even further objects gravitational lensing can be taken advantage of where it's possible.
The horizon looks straight because earth is nearly 8,000 miles in diameter, and you are most likely less than 7' tall. But the farther you travel upwards, the more discernible the horizon is. Wiki has the equation for it. It's a high school level equation-3 variables.
QUOTE
My crank mind still questions how certain we can be about interstellar distances through relative spacetime. After all, if time slows down as velocity approaches C, and there is no limit to how close to C velocity can accelerate, then velocity itself becomes relative to the length of a second, no? Or does the speed of light in m/s refer to some standardized second at sea-level or something?
Light travels through space at the speed of light; it is very dependable. None of what you said affects light. You're confusing a spaceship's time approaching c relative to an observer's timeframe. Light carrying it's information through space has nothing to do with that.Concerning gauging distances, astronomers use parallax shift, which involves relative positions of multiple stars during earth's revolution. It's sketchier calculating extreme distances, but there are stars called cepheids that astronomers use as distance points. Luckily they are nicely scattered about in every galaxy, and thankfully they are big and bright. They are precisely variable in light pulsation or fluctuation (they are not pulsars) and this variability gives astronomers a gauge to determine distances for everything 'around' them. For even further objects gravitational lensing can be taken advantage of where it's possible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My crank mind still questions how certain we can be about interstellar distances through relative spacetime. After all, if time slows down as velocity approaches C, and there is no limit to how close to C velocity can accelerate, then velocity itself becomes relative to the length of a second, no? Or does the speed of light in m/s refer to some standardized second at sea-level or something? |
Light travels through space at the speed of light; it is very dependable. None of what you said affects light. You're confusing a spaceship's time approaching c relative to an observer's timeframe. Light carrying it's information through space has nothing to do with that.
Concerning gauging distances, astronomers use parallax shift, which involves relative positions of multiple stars during earth's revolution. It's sketchier calculating extreme distances, but there are stars called cepheids that astronomers use as distance points. Luckily they are nicely scattered about in every galaxy, and thankfully they are big and bright. They are precisely variable in light pulsation or fluctuation (they are not pulsars) and this variability gives astronomers a gauge to determine distances for everything 'around' them. For even further objects gravitational lensing can be taken advantage of where it's possible. You're right about the conceptualizer not being able to know the truth without proof, and unfortunately too often those who have experienced truth, either through proof or authority, grow quickly impatient with those who continue to be unsatisfied and seek greater conviction. Hence the social compulsion and bullying to accept authority.
Concerning gauging distances, astronomers use parallax shift, which involves relative positions of multiple stars during earth's revolution. It's sketchier calculating extreme distances, but there are stars called cepheids that astronomers use as distance points. Luckily they are nicely scattered about in every galaxy, and thankfully they are big and bright. They are precisely variable in light pulsation or fluctuation (they are not pulsars) and this variability gives astronomers a gauge to determine distances for everything 'around' them. For even further objects gravitational lensing can be taken advantage of where it's possible. You're right about the conceptualizer not being able to know the truth without proof, and unfortunately too often those who have experienced truth, either through proof or authority, grow quickly impatient with those who continue to be unsatisfied and seek greater conviction. Hence the social compulsion and bullying to accept authority.
Not authority, truth. And I would read 'unsatisfied' as 'unable to understand what is plainly in front of them'. Mostly they don't seek greater conviction, they seek to trash what they are too embarrassed to admit they don't get. And they fail.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Mar 7 2010, 07:07 AM)
if one is 'traveling back in time', which I disbelieve in, they are not reliving memories, they are reliving events.
Actually the way it's portrayed in stories where people supposedly travel back in time that's not what's really going on anyway. The supposed traveler stays as he was in the "time" departed from, while everything else in the universe changes back to the condition and positions it had been in during the time the supposed traveler is supposedly traveling back to....everything else "travels" EXCEPT for the supposed traveler.
. . .
Actually the way it's portrayed in stories where people supposedly travel back in time that's not what's really going on anyway. The supposed traveler stays as he was in the "time" departed from, while everything else in the universe changes back to the condition and positions it had been in during the time the supposed traveler is supposedly traveling back to....everything else "travels" EXCEPT for the supposed traveler.
. . .
QUOTE (soundhertz+Mar 7 2010, 07:07 AM)
Light travels through space at the speed of light; it is very dependable.
As yet it hasn't been established and universally agreed upon as to what "lightspeed" is in relation to. So far I've been told:
- a destination
- an object of departure
- a point of departure
- any observer anywhere
- any other object anywhere
As yet it hasn't been established and universally agreed upon as to what "lightspeed" is in relation to. So far I've been told:
- a destination
- an object of departure
- a point of departure
- any observer anywhere
- any other object anywhere
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2010, 06:51 PM)
He started out by saying he didn't believe time exists, but he also makes NO DISTINCTION between TIME as a means of measurement and TIME as something with PHYSICAL PROPERTIES.
Time as a measurement is something humans made up and can change and create as they see fit, which is what's going on.
Time with physical properties would require that time exists and somehow acquires, directs and uses tremendous amounts of energy to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and consistently. If it existed then we probably would have detected it and been measuring it by now. But we haven't, and can't.
Time as a measurement is something humans made up and can change and create as they see fit, which is what's going on.
Time with physical properties would require that time exists and somehow acquires, directs and uses tremendous amounts of energy to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and consistently. If it existed then we probably would have detected it and been measuring it by now. But we haven't, and can't.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 8 2010, 01:34 PM)
Time as a measurement is something humans made up and can change and create as they see fit, which is what's going on.
The UNITS of measurement are made-up, but that which is measured is not made-up.
The UNITS of measurement are made-up, but that which is measured is not made-up.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 8 2010, 12:34 PM)
Time with physical properties would require that time exists and somehow acquires, directs and uses tremendous amounts of energy to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and consistently. If it existed then we probably would have detected it and been measuring it by now. But we haven't, and can't.
Second verse, same as the first.....
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=449194
Arthur
Second verse, same as the first.....
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=449194
Arthur
dopEda
Yes it has, as it has been explained to you many times(and you have shown you are too stupid to understand)it is in relation to the frame of the observer. It does not matter what that frame is, every observer will observe the speed of light in a vacuum as being EXACTLY the same within their own frames.
Looking at two very different frames...
A scientist sitting on the face of the Earth will measure the speed of light as being 186,000 mps.
A scientist traveling on a spacecraft moving close to the speed of light will also get that same result.
Dilation is a measure of the difference observed between two different frames.
The Earthbound scientist will see the rate of time passing very slowly for the spacecraft riding scientist. The spacecraft riding scientist will see time pass very quickly for those on Earth's surface(as well as in the rest of the Universe). These are just facts, not subject to change due to utter stupidity.
Yes it has, as it has been explained to you many times(and you have shown you are too stupid to understand)it is in relation to the frame of the observer. It does not matter what that frame is, every observer will observe the speed of light in a vacuum as being EXACTLY the same within their own frames.
Looking at two very different frames...
A scientist sitting on the face of the Earth will measure the speed of light as being 186,000 mps.
A scientist traveling on a spacecraft moving close to the speed of light will also get that same result.
Dilation is a measure of the difference observed between two different frames.
The Earthbound scientist will see the rate of time passing very slowly for the spacecraft riding scientist. The spacecraft riding scientist will see time pass very quickly for those on Earth's surface(as well as in the rest of the Universe). These are just facts, not subject to change due to utter stupidity.
Time as a measurement is something humans made up and can change and create as they see fit, which is what's going on.
The units of measuring times passage are humaan inventions(like the foot, meter or inch), but what they describe is not an invention of humans, time existed long before puny humans came along.
We can and have measured the passage of time every day(the time it takes the Earth to spin once on it's axis). You are an idiot. Time is not energy, uses no energy and is one of the very first properties of the Universe to be meaasured by man.
Are you really expecting better results this time using the exact same behavior? Are you just totally incapable of learning any lesson?
light in the tunnel
We can and have measured the passage of time every day(the time it takes the Earth to spin once on it's axis). You are an idiot. Time is not energy, uses no energy and is one of the very first properties of the Universe to be meaasured by man.
Are you really expecting better results this time using the exact same behavior? Are you just totally incapable of learning any lesson?
light in the tunnel
Ok, that contextualizes it. Now what I'm trying to figure out is what relationship there is between different speeds of time according to gravity/velocity situation. For example, from Earth it appears that it takes neptune 165 years to orbit the sun, but at the degree of solar-gravity dilation where neptune is, time must go much slower than at Earth's distance. So a person living in orbit around neptune would observe Earth life occurring at an accelerated rate and, therefore, would outlive someone who attains the same age in Earth orbit?
The difference in time rate would be miniscule with the rate at Neptune being slightly faster than at Earth distance and even slower at Mercury's distance(but still miniscule). Only close to an Event Horizon of a Black Hole(or at relativistic speeds)would time slow down greatly, our sun has no such horizon.
Time is NOT a uniform dimension between two frames, nor is distance, the speed of light, physical dimensions(length, width, depth), mass, etc. It's all relative.
Grumpy
As yet it hasn't been established and universally agreed upon as to what "lightspeed" is in relation to. So far I've been told:
- a destination
- an object of departure
- a point of departure
- any observer anywhere
- any other object anywhere
In relationship to ANYTHING.
In relationship to anything on your list.
If you take ANY example lightspeed is the maximum.
It's the relative to anything that makes it strange (but true).
As yet it hasn't been established and universally agreed upon as to where you can eat.
I've been told
-at home,
-at work,
-at restaurants,
-in the kitchen,
-in the dining room,
-in the living room.
QUOTE
As yet it hasn't been established and universally agreed upon as to what "lightspeed" is in relation to.
Yes it has, as it has been explained to you many times(and you have shown you are too stupid to understand)it is in relation to the frame of the observer. It does not matter what that frame is, every observer will observe the speed of light in a vacuum as being EXACTLY the same within their own frames.
Looking at two very different frames...
A scientist sitting on the face of the Earth will measure the speed of light as being 186,000 mps.
A scientist traveling on a spacecraft moving close to the speed of light will also get that same result.
Dilation is a measure of the difference observed between two different frames.
The Earthbound scientist will see the rate of time passing very slowly for the spacecraft riding scientist. The spacecraft riding scientist will see time pass very quickly for those on Earth's surface(as well as in the rest of the Universe). These are just facts, not subject to change due to utter stupidity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As yet it hasn't been established and universally agreed upon as to what "lightspeed" is in relation to. |
Yes it has, as it has been explained to you many times(and you have shown you are too stupid to understand)it is in relation to the frame of the observer. It does not matter what that frame is, every observer will observe the speed of light in a vacuum as being EXACTLY the same within their own frames.
Looking at two very different frames...
A scientist sitting on the face of the Earth will measure the speed of light as being 186,000 mps.
A scientist traveling on a spacecraft moving close to the speed of light will also get that same result.
Dilation is a measure of the difference observed between two different frames.
The Earthbound scientist will see the rate of time passing very slowly for the spacecraft riding scientist. The spacecraft riding scientist will see time pass very quickly for those on Earth's surface(as well as in the rest of the Universe). These are just facts, not subject to change due to utter stupidity.
Time as a measurement is something humans made up and can change and create as they see fit, which is what's going on.
The units of measuring times passage are humaan inventions(like the foot, meter or inch), but what they describe is not an invention of humans, time existed long before puny humans came along.
QUOTE
Time with physical properties would require that time exists and somehow acquires, directs and uses tremendous amounts of energy to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and consistently. If it existed then we probably would have detected it and been measuring it by now. But we haven't, and can't.
We can and have measured the passage of time every day(the time it takes the Earth to spin once on it's axis). You are an idiot. Time is not energy, uses no energy and is one of the very first properties of the Universe to be meaasured by man.
Are you really expecting better results this time using the exact same behavior? Are you just totally incapable of learning any lesson?
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Time with physical properties would require that time exists and somehow acquires, directs and uses tremendous amounts of energy to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and consistently. If it existed then we probably would have detected it and been measuring it by now. But we haven't, and can't. |
We can and have measured the passage of time every day(the time it takes the Earth to spin once on it's axis). You are an idiot. Time is not energy, uses no energy and is one of the very first properties of the Universe to be meaasured by man.
Are you really expecting better results this time using the exact same behavior? Are you just totally incapable of learning any lesson?
light in the tunnel
Ok, that contextualizes it. Now what I'm trying to figure out is what relationship there is between different speeds of time according to gravity/velocity situation. For example, from Earth it appears that it takes neptune 165 years to orbit the sun, but at the degree of solar-gravity dilation where neptune is, time must go much slower than at Earth's distance. So a person living in orbit around neptune would observe Earth life occurring at an accelerated rate and, therefore, would outlive someone who attains the same age in Earth orbit?
The difference in time rate would be miniscule with the rate at Neptune being slightly faster than at Earth distance and even slower at Mercury's distance(but still miniscule). Only close to an Event Horizon of a Black Hole(or at relativistic speeds)would time slow down greatly, our sun has no such horizon.
QUOTE
When you measure time as a general dimension, don't you have to assume the ratios between various events will be uniform. For example, if there are 365 days in a year and 24x60 minutes in a day and 60 ticks of a clock in a second, then if the ratio of clock-ticks to minutes changes in orbit, then time isn't a uniform dimension for the two clocks, right?
Time is NOT a uniform dimension between two frames, nor is distance, the speed of light, physical dimensions(length, width, depth), mass, etc. It's all relative.
Grumpy
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 8 2010, 12:25 PM)
As yet it hasn't been established and universally agreed upon as to what "lightspeed" is in relation to. So far I've been told:
- a destination
- an object of departure
- a point of departure
- any observer anywhere
- any other object anywhere
But yet, you refuse to pick up a book to see who is right.
That makes you intellectually lazy and/or willfully ignorant.
- a destination
- an object of departure
- a point of departure
- any observer anywhere
- any other object anywhere
But yet, you refuse to pick up a book to see who is right.
That makes you intellectually lazy and/or willfully ignorant.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 8 2010, 05:25 PM)
As yet it hasn't been established and universally agreed upon as to what "lightspeed" is in relation to. So far I've been told:
- a destination
- an object of departure
- a point of departure
- any observer anywhere
- any other object anywhere
In relationship to ANYTHING.
In relationship to anything on your list.
If you take ANY example lightspeed is the maximum.
It's the relative to anything that makes it strange (but true).
As yet it hasn't been established and universally agreed upon as to where you can eat.
I've been told
-at home,
-at work,
-at restaurants,
-in the kitchen,
-in the dining room,
-in the living room.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 9 2010, 03:34 AM)
Time as a measurement is something humans made up and can change and create as they see fit, which is what's going on.
Time with physical properties would require that time exists and somehow acquires, directs and uses tremendous amounts of energy to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and consistently. If it existed then we probably would have detected it and been measuring it by now. But we haven't, and can't.
Call it whatever you like, but there's still that 4th dimension which allows for an extra degree of freedom which influences matter in the universe.
Time with physical properties would require that time exists and somehow acquires, directs and uses tremendous amounts of energy to influence all matter in the universe simultaneously and consistently. If it existed then we probably would have detected it and been measuring it by now. But we haven't, and can't.
Call it whatever you like, but there's still that 4th dimension which allows for an extra degree of freedom which influences matter in the universe.
There definetly is two ontological schools of thought here:
perdurantism and endurantism.
Perdurantism states that objects are somewhat unchanging and four-dimensional. Endurantism says that objects are three-dimensional and change through time.
It is as if it was meant that we could feel both at once. Coincidence?
perdurantism and endurantism.
Perdurantism states that objects are somewhat unchanging and four-dimensional. Endurantism says that objects are three-dimensional and change through time.
It is as if it was meant that we could feel both at once. Coincidence?
QUOTE (Frothy+Apr 9 2010, 05:11 PM)
There definetly is two ontological schools of thought here:
perdurantism and endurantism.
Perdurantism states that objects are somewhat unchanging and four-dimensional. Endurantism says that objects are three-dimensional and change through time.
It is as if it was meant that we could feel both at once. Coincidence?
I say a puddle of water.
The hole it was in, fit it exactly.
Coincidence?
perdurantism and endurantism.
Perdurantism states that objects are somewhat unchanging and four-dimensional. Endurantism says that objects are three-dimensional and change through time.
It is as if it was meant that we could feel both at once. Coincidence?
I say a puddle of water.
The hole it was in, fit it exactly.
Coincidence?
QUOTE (nopEda+Mar 3 2010, 10:24 AM)
If you think time exists then you should be able to explain either:
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.
so please try.
Congrats. You've won the "Dumbest Post of the (insert non-chronometric categorization here)" award. Shall we assume you will now be "going to Disneyland" and will knock off the stupidity for a while, or is that too much to ask?
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.
so please try.
Congrats. You've won the "Dumbest Post of the (insert non-chronometric categorization here)" award. Shall we assume you will now be "going to Disneyland" and will knock off the stupidity for a while, or is that too much to ask?
Waaay too much!
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Apr 9 2010, 01:26 PM)
Congrats. You've won the "Dumbest Post of the (insert non-chronometric categorization here)" award. Shall we assume you will now be "going to Disneyland" and will knock off the stupidity for a while, or is that too much to ask?
No, now he'll try to beat dad1's record.
No, now he'll try to beat dad1's record.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 9 2010, 05:34 PM)
I say a puddle of water.
The hole it was in, fit it exactly.
Coincidence?
The hole it was in, fit it exactly.
Coincidence?
QUOTE (Frothy+Apr 9 2010, 05:11 PM)
There definetly is two ontological schools of thought here:
perdurantism and endurantism.
Perdurantism states that objects are somewhat unchanging and four-dimensional. Endurantism says that objects are three-dimensional and change through time.
It is as if it was meant that we could feel both at once. Coincidence?
I've seen it explained on a bumper sticker before. Sh*t happens. That sums it up as far as "time". We're lucky things don't stop, and IF someone wanted to try to argue in favor of time's existence I believe they could suggest that time is what provides the energy required to keep electrons spinning around protons for billions of years, and stuff like that. Unless they know something else is providing it that is. If they do know, what is it and how long is the supply expected to last?
perdurantism and endurantism.
Perdurantism states that objects are somewhat unchanging and four-dimensional. Endurantism says that objects are three-dimensional and change through time.
It is as if it was meant that we could feel both at once. Coincidence?
I've seen it explained on a bumper sticker before. Sh*t happens. That sums it up as far as "time". We're lucky things don't stop, and IF someone wanted to try to argue in favor of time's existence I believe they could suggest that time is what provides the energy required to keep electrons spinning around protons for billions of years, and stuff like that. Unless they know something else is providing it that is. If they do know, what is it and how long is the supply expected to last?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Apr 9 2010, 08:26 PM)
Congrats. You've won the "Dumbest Post of the (insert non-chronometric categorization here)" award. Shall we assume you will now be "going to Disneyland" and will knock off the stupidity for a while, or is that too much to ask?
Thanks for your own sharing of insults and stupidities. Recently you haven't been as generous with your idiocies as you were in the past, but I have a feeling you probably have some very "odd" ideas about time. You believe it's possible to travel back in time, don't you? You think time exists in a physical way, influencing all things in the universe simultaneously and constantly, do you not?
Thanks for your own sharing of insults and stupidities. Recently you haven't been as generous with your idiocies as you were in the past, but I have a feeling you probably have some very "odd" ideas about time. You believe it's possible to travel back in time, don't you? You think time exists in a physical way, influencing all things in the universe simultaneously and constantly, do you not?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 8 2010, 06:29 PM)
Dilation is a measure of the difference observed between two different frames.
Which is when things can move ftl relative to each other.
Which is when things can move ftl relative to each other.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 8 2010, 06:29 PM)
The Earthbound scientist will see the rate of time passing very slowly for the spacecraft riding scientist. The spacecraft riding scientist will see time pass very quickly for those on Earth's surface(as well as in the rest of the Universe). These are just facts, not subject to change due to utter stupidity.
The units of measuring times passage are humaan inventions(like the foot, meter or inch), but what they describe is not an invention of humans, time existed long before puny humans came along.
We can and have measured the passage of time every day(the time it takes the Earth to spin once on it's axis). You are an idiot. Time is not energy, uses no energy and is one of the very first properties of the Universe to be meaasured by man.
Oops
I mean:
I didn't know it had ever even been detected, much less measured. Can you provide any links to when and how time was first detected and shown to exist?
I didn't know it had ever even been detected, much less measured. Can you provide any links to when and how time was first detected and shown to exist?
Just what is it you think we are talking about when we say "time"?
it is simply counting at a regular beat.
The units of measuring times passage are humaan inventions(like the foot, meter or inch), but what they describe is not an invention of humans, time existed long before puny humans came along.
We can and have measured the passage of time every day(the time it takes the Earth to spin once on it's axis). You are an idiot. Time is not energy, uses no energy and is one of the very first properties of the Universe to be meaasured by man.
Oops
I mean: I didn't know it had ever even been detected, much less measured. Can you provide any links to when and how time was first detected and shown to exist?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 8 2010, 06:29 PM)
Are you really expecting better results this time using the exact same behavior? Are you just totally incapable of learning any lesson?
Sifting out the bulshit takes "time", and necessarily requires not believing everything that everyone says. Clocks do NOT measure time for example. Thermometers may not literally measure temperature either, but they come a whole lot closer to it than clocks don't come to measuring time, and in a completely and significantly different way. Well, it's significant to me, but if not to you then... poor you from my pov.
Sifting out the bulshit takes "time", and necessarily requires not believing everything that everyone says. Clocks do NOT measure time for example. Thermometers may not literally measure temperature either, but they come a whole lot closer to it than clocks don't come to measuring time, and in a completely and significantly different way. Well, it's significant to me, but if not to you then
... poor you from my pov.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 11 2010, 06:03 PM)
I didn't know it had ever even been detected, much less measured. Can you provide any links to when and how time was first detected and shown to exist?
Just what is it you think we are talking about when we say "time"?
it is simply counting at a regular beat.
nopEda
Things can not travel faster than light, PERIOD. Dilation exists at less than light speed.
It seems that what you don't know would fill whole libraries. The passage of time is not in doubt, though, with you as an example, the existence of intelligent life on Earth is.
It seems that what you don't know would fill whole libraries. The passage of time is not in doubt, though, with you as an example, the existence of intelligent life on Earth is.
Sifting out the bulshit takes "time", and necessarily requires not believing everything that everyone says. Clocks do NOT measure time for example. Thermometers may not literally measure temperature either, but they come a whole lot closer to it than clocks don't come to measuring time, and in a completely and significantly different way. Well, it's significant to me, but if not to you then ... poor you from my pov.
You seem to know nothing but BS. Clocks measure times passing in exactly the same way a yardstck measures a distance. The yard stick is not a yard, it is a stick that is a yard long. A yard does not exist as a physical object, yet we have no difficulty whatsoever in measuring objects in terms of yards. A second is not a physical thing, you cannot put time into a bottle, yet we have myriad ways of measuring times passage and like the yardstick they are simply a means to measure that passage. Time is just one of the four dimensions that describe spacetime, you cannot describe the Universe without time. We have before, during and after, our units of time tell us how long before, the duration of during and how long until after.
I feel sorry about that botched lobotomy you experienced, they could have done a better job by sticking an ice pick into your ear and stirring it around. But you are going to have to accept that you are not capable of intelligent discourse about ANY subject and ask your doctor for some meds for that bad case of verbal diarrhea you have developed.
You certainly won't be here long(as in for a long duration of time)repeating(as in doing again what you have done in the past(as in before now))the same post over and over again(see repeating)never(as in at no point in time)learning anything(as in knowing now what you didn't know before now). Terminally Stupid is a terrible thing to be.
Grumpy
What things?
From whom and from where?
What things?
From whom and from where?
________________________________________
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/10/prweb289520.htm
All Press Releases for October 11, 2005 Yahoo
Einstein's Theory of Relativity Explained to Satisfaction on One Page
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is finally explained to net satisfaction on a single astute page, by an intellectual giant, uncredentialed.
(PRWEB <http://www.prweb.com/>) October 11, 2005 -- Executive Briefing: Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Relativity is all about how light behaves, and from that some truth is differentiated from some fiction. Light's behavior is particularly at issue because the cosmos is ever expanding some of the very distant galaxies are receding from us at near light speed we find that true while looking in any direction.
Getting right into it, if a fleet ("The Fleet") of spacecraft left Earth and sped away at a significant fraction of lightspeed, then how would light (and/or radio, EM) signals behave between us and them? and how would such signals behave among The Fleet members themselves?
Would a radio signal sent from Earth take extra time to reach The Fleet, because it is receding away? Yet the reverse is not true?? ie. signals from The Fleet will transit only the predetermined distance through Earth's fixed coordinate system? Who is actually receding from whom?? Does it depend on how Earth is moving with respect to a higher coordinate system, some fixed master coordinate system?
In a word, no, none of that is true. OK, it's all true, relatively true. What's absolutely true is the denial of any master cosmic framework serving as medium for electromagnetic signal transmissions: EM signals find their own way about, somehow transcendent of mortal ciphering. It's uncanny; we don't know the how but we know the how much. We realize now that light behaves relativistically, which means that every clock and every ruler in the world must cede something to accommodate the feat.
In the stated scenario, The Fleet astronauts experience one thing while us Earthbound folk experience something altogether different, something that seems contradictory. By all reckoning, the astronauts witness their Fleet's signals to be moving at fixed lightspeed with respect to The Fleet's native 3D coordinate system and by native is meant simply, "that x-y-z frame with respect to which The Fleet is stock still in space." Those astronauts they witness their outgoing signals as requiring extra time to "catch up" to the receding Earth, yet incoming Earth signals need only travel the predetermined distance from their release point. And all the calculations work out no, there is no incompetence.
And wouldn't you know? Earthlings can make the very same claim. By all reckoning, they witness EM signals behaving as if Earth's native 3D coordinate system is boss. Their outgoing signals require extra time to catch up to the receding space Fleet, yet incoming Fleet signals need only travel the predetermined distance from their release point.
And this relativity carries over to within The Fleet itself: its member craft are able to swap messages amongst themselves, with only their fixed separation distance dictating the transmission delay. Light and radio signals don't take longer to transit in one particular direction because of The Fleet's supposed motion "through space" that element is negated entirely.
And now the final concluding point. Isn't it great that light behaves this way? especially considering that many millions of distant galaxies are flying away from us at tremendous speeds. If light simply moved relative to Earth, or relative to some master cosmic coordinate system (with respect to which Earth is fairly still), then how could those (hypothetical) zillions of aliens who populate those myriad distant galaxies ever live, eh?? they couldn't. They would live in a giant ever-distorted world, where a simple twisting of the neck would mean drastic changes in their view of the surroundings all hot and blue-shifted in one direction, pale and red-shifted in the other. They would be burned alive by a single candle flame if its radiations were coming from the wrong side.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dilation is a measure of the difference observed between two different frames. Which is when things can move ftl relative to each other. |
Things can not travel faster than light, PERIOD. Dilation exists at less than light speed.
QUOTE
I didn't know it had ever even been detected, much less measured. Can you provide any links to when(do you mean when in time?)and how time was first detected and shown to exist?
It seems that what you don't know would fill whole libraries. The passage of time is not in doubt, though, with you as an example, the existence of intelligent life on Earth is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I didn't know it had ever even been detected, much less measured. Can you provide any links to when(do you mean when in time?)and how time was first detected and shown to exist? |
It seems that what you don't know would fill whole libraries. The passage of time is not in doubt, though, with you as an example, the existence of intelligent life on Earth is.
Sifting out the bulshit takes "time", and necessarily requires not believing everything that everyone says. Clocks do NOT measure time for example. Thermometers may not literally measure temperature either, but they come a whole lot closer to it than clocks don't come to measuring time, and in a completely and significantly different way. Well, it's significant to me, but if not to you then ... poor you from my pov.
You seem to know nothing but BS. Clocks measure times passing in exactly the same way a yardstck measures a distance. The yard stick is not a yard, it is a stick that is a yard long. A yard does not exist as a physical object, yet we have no difficulty whatsoever in measuring objects in terms of yards. A second is not a physical thing, you cannot put time into a bottle, yet we have myriad ways of measuring times passage and like the yardstick they are simply a means to measure that passage. Time is just one of the four dimensions that describe spacetime, you cannot describe the Universe without time. We have before, during and after, our units of time tell us how long before, the duration of during and how long until after.
I feel sorry about that botched lobotomy you experienced, they could have done a better job by sticking an ice pick into your ear and stirring it around. But you are going to have to accept that you are not capable of intelligent discourse about ANY subject and ask your doctor for some meds for that bad case of verbal diarrhea you have developed.
You certainly won't be here long(as in for a long duration of time)repeating(as in doing again what you have done in the past(as in before now))the same post over and over again(see repeating)never(as in at no point in time)learning anything(as in knowing now what you didn't know before now). Terminally Stupid is a terrible thing to be.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 11 2010, 11:02 PM)
Things can not travel faster than light, PERIOD.
. . .
they could have done a better job by sticking an ice pick into your ear and stirring it around.
I was the one who said time doesn't exist in the first place, and other people tried to argue that it does. All you've done other than try to be insulting, is agree with what I said to start with regarding time.
So far the things I've read OTHER THAN from people in this forum, suggest that things can go ftl. I'm guessing people who accept the idea might believe that the velocity between two objects can't exceed twice the speed of light, but that would be beyond what you allow yourself to think about since you don't want to believe it can exceed light speed at all.
. . .
they could have done a better job by sticking an ice pick into your ear and stirring it around.
I was the one who said time doesn't exist in the first place, and other people tried to argue that it does. All you've done other than try to be insulting, is agree with what I said to start with regarding time.
So far the things I've read OTHER THAN from people in this forum, suggest that things can go ftl. I'm guessing people who accept the idea might believe that the velocity between two objects can't exceed twice the speed of light, but that would be beyond what you allow yourself to think about since you don't want to believe it can exceed light speed at all.
QUOTE
So far the things I've read OTHER THAN from people in this forum, suggest that things can go ftl.
What things?
From whom and from where?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Apr 12 2010, 12:08 AM)
What things?
From whom and from where?
________________________________________
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/10/prweb289520.htm
All Press Releases for October 11, 2005 Yahoo
Einstein's Theory of Relativity Explained to Satisfaction on One Page
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is finally explained to net satisfaction on a single astute page, by an intellectual giant, uncredentialed.
(PRWEB <http://www.prweb.com/>) October 11, 2005 -- Executive Briefing: Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Relativity is all about how light behaves, and from that some truth is differentiated from some fiction. Light's behavior is particularly at issue because the cosmos is ever expanding some of the very distant galaxies are receding from us at near light speed we find that true while looking in any direction.
Getting right into it, if a fleet ("The Fleet") of spacecraft left Earth and sped away at a significant fraction of lightspeed, then how would light (and/or radio, EM) signals behave between us and them? and how would such signals behave among The Fleet members themselves?
Would a radio signal sent from Earth take extra time to reach The Fleet, because it is receding away? Yet the reverse is not true?? ie. signals from The Fleet will transit only the predetermined distance through Earth's fixed coordinate system? Who is actually receding from whom?? Does it depend on how Earth is moving with respect to a higher coordinate system, some fixed master coordinate system?
In a word, no, none of that is true. OK, it's all true, relatively true. What's absolutely true is the denial of any master cosmic framework serving as medium for electromagnetic signal transmissions: EM signals find their own way about, somehow transcendent of mortal ciphering. It's uncanny; we don't know the how but we know the how much. We realize now that light behaves relativistically, which means that every clock and every ruler in the world must cede something to accommodate the feat.
In the stated scenario, The Fleet astronauts experience one thing while us Earthbound folk experience something altogether different, something that seems contradictory. By all reckoning, the astronauts witness their Fleet's signals to be moving at fixed lightspeed with respect to The Fleet's native 3D coordinate system and by native is meant simply, "that x-y-z frame with respect to which The Fleet is stock still in space." Those astronauts they witness their outgoing signals as requiring extra time to "catch up" to the receding Earth, yet incoming Earth signals need only travel the predetermined distance from their release point. And all the calculations work out no, there is no incompetence.
And wouldn't you know? Earthlings can make the very same claim. By all reckoning, they witness EM signals behaving as if Earth's native 3D coordinate system is boss. Their outgoing signals require extra time to catch up to the receding space Fleet, yet incoming Fleet signals need only travel the predetermined distance from their release point.
And this relativity carries over to within The Fleet itself: its member craft are able to swap messages amongst themselves, with only their fixed separation distance dictating the transmission delay. Light and radio signals don't take longer to transit in one particular direction because of The Fleet's supposed motion "through space" that element is negated entirely.
And now the final concluding point. Isn't it great that light behaves this way? especially considering that many millions of distant galaxies are flying away from us at tremendous speeds. If light simply moved relative to Earth, or relative to some master cosmic coordinate system (with respect to which Earth is fairly still), then how could those (hypothetical) zillions of aliens who populate those myriad distant galaxies ever live, eh?? they couldn't. They would live in a giant ever-distorted world, where a simple twisting of the neck would mean drastic changes in their view of the surroundings all hot and blue-shifted in one direction, pale and red-shifted in the other. They would be burned alive by a single candle flame if its radiations were coming from the wrong side.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Hmmm... that was really sad...
???
Seriously, that's where you get your info?
QUOTE
by an intellectual giant, uncredentialed.
???
Seriously, that's where you get your info?
I believe that more than one person has dismissed that explanation as complete BS.
Here's a better explanation: http://www.howstuffworks.com/relativity.htm
Here's a better explanation: http://www.howstuffworks.com/relativity.htm
Why did you quote something that says that you are wrong?
"By all reckoning, the astronauts witness their Fleet's signals to be moving at fixed lightspeed with respect to The Fleet's native 3D coordinate system"
That is what we are saying.
Nothing goes faster than light.
"By all reckoning, the astronauts witness their Fleet's signals to be moving at fixed lightspeed with respect to The Fleet's native 3D coordinate system"
That is what we are saying.
Nothing goes faster than light.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 12 2010, 12:38 AM)
Why did you quote something that says that you are wrong?
"By all reckoning, the astronauts witness their Fleet's signals to be moving at fixed lightspeed with respect to The Fleet's native 3D coordinate system"
That is what we are saying.
Nothing goes faster than light.
That's only within one frame of reference. I'm truly suprised none of you can get that far, but it's not my fault.
At this page:
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
I believe it was Andrew Zimmerman Jones but I'm not sure, who wrote the following quotes I feel are significant:
"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. "
"A light source moving away from the listener (v is positive) would provide an fL that is less than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a red shift. When the light source is moving toward the listener (v is negative), then fL is greater than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum."
"By all reckoning, the astronauts witness their Fleet's signals to be moving at fixed lightspeed with respect to The Fleet's native 3D coordinate system"
That is what we are saying.
Nothing goes faster than light.
That's only within one frame of reference. I'm truly suprised none of you can get that far, but it's not my fault.
At this page:
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
I believe it was Andrew Zimmerman Jones but I'm not sure, who wrote the following quotes I feel are significant:
"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. "
"A light source moving away from the listener (v is positive) would provide an fL that is less than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a red shift. When the light source is moving toward the listener (v is negative), then fL is greater than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum."
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 11 2010, 09:59 PM)
it's not my fault.
Yeah.
It is.
A change in the FREQUENCY of light doesn't affect it's speed of propogation.
Red light, Blue light, don't matter as both moving at c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
Arthur
Yeah.
It is.
A change in the FREQUENCY of light doesn't affect it's speed of propogation.
Red light, Blue light, don't matter as both moving at c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
Arthur
Does the bass part reach you before the piccolo part does? No, I didn't think so. Your reference is wrong.
CORRECTION: (I went and read it) Your reference is correct, you just don't understand it. (The frequency changes, the speed at which it travels does not.)
CORRECTION: (I went and read it) Your reference is correct, you just don't understand it. (The frequency changes, the speed at which it travels does not.)
dopEda
And you were wrong. Time exists just like a yard exists, it is one of the four dimensions of spacetime just like width, breadth and length. Of course there is no such physical thing as length, breadth or length, they are DESCRIPTIONS of size/position in space just like time is a description of position in time.
And you were wrong. Time exists just like a yard exists, it is one of the four dimensions of spacetime just like width, breadth and length. Of course there is no such physical thing as length, breadth or length, they are DESCRIPTIONS of size/position in space just like time is a description of position in time.
All you've done other than try to be insulting, is agree with what I said to start with regarding time.
No, no one here agrees with you that time does not exist, we know that even non physical concepts do exist.
BS! Only the nutjobs deny relativity and relativity precludes ANYTHING going faster than lightspeed(even light itself)under ANY circumstances.
BS! Only the nutjobs deny relativity and relativity precludes ANYTHING going faster than lightspeed(even light itself)under ANY circumstances.
________________________________________
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/10/prweb289520.htm
You are such a dumbass! You posted a reference that says you are wrong and we are right! What a maroon(as Bugs would say)!
________________________________________
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/10/prweb289520.htm
You are such a dumbass! You posted a reference that says you are wrong and we are right! What a maroon(as Bugs would say)!
That's only within one frame of reference. I'm truly suprised none of you can get that far, but it's not my fault.
At this page:
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
I believe it was Andrew Zimmerman Jones but I'm not sure, who wrote the following quotes I feel are significant:
"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. "
"A light source moving away from the listener (v is positive) would provide an fL that is less than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a red shift. When the light source is moving toward the listener (v is negative), then fL is greater than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum."
You don't even know the difference between light's velocity(which is fixed)aand it's frequency(which is not fixed)! And you want to tell us(some of whom are real physicists)about physics? Then you wonder why we all think you're stupid? It's because you realy ARE stupid, wonder no more.
Grumpy
Yeah.
It is.
A change in the FREQUENCY of light doesn't affect it's speed of propogation.
Red light, Blue light, don't matter as both moving at c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
Arthur
I knew about that stuff for years.
It's the difference in velocity between the light source and the observer that changes the difference in the speed of the light, changing the frequency with which the waves reach the observer. Totally different than with waves of a medium.
Do you know anywhere we can read quotes of Einstein explaining this stuff?
QUOTE
I was the one who said time doesn't exist in the first place
And you were wrong. Time exists just like a yard exists, it is one of the four dimensions of spacetime just like width, breadth and length. Of course there is no such physical thing as length, breadth or length, they are DESCRIPTIONS of size/position in space just like time is a description of position in time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was the one who said time doesn't exist in the first place |
And you were wrong. Time exists just like a yard exists, it is one of the four dimensions of spacetime just like width, breadth and length. Of course there is no such physical thing as length, breadth or length, they are DESCRIPTIONS of size/position in space just like time is a description of position in time.
All you've done other than try to be insulting, is agree with what I said to start with regarding time.
No, no one here agrees with you that time does not exist, we know that even non physical concepts do exist.
QUOTE
So far the things I've read OTHER THAN from people in this forum, suggest that things can go ftl.
BS! Only the nutjobs deny relativity and relativity precludes ANYTHING going faster than lightspeed(even light itself)under ANY circumstances.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So far the things I've read OTHER THAN from people in this forum, suggest that things can go ftl. |
BS! Only the nutjobs deny relativity and relativity precludes ANYTHING going faster than lightspeed(even light itself)under ANY circumstances.
QUOTE
(RobDegraves @ Apr 12 2010, 12:08 AM)
What things?
From whom and from where?
What things?
From whom and from where?
________________________________________
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/10/prweb289520.htm
You are such a dumbass! You posted a reference that says you are wrong and we are right! What a maroon(as Bugs would say)!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (RobDegraves @ Apr 12 2010, 12:08 AM) What things? From whom and from where? |
________________________________________
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/10/prweb289520.htm
You are such a dumbass! You posted a reference that says you are wrong and we are right! What a maroon(as Bugs would say)!
That's only within one frame of reference. I'm truly suprised none of you can get that far, but it's not my fault.
At this page:
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doplight.htm
I believe it was Andrew Zimmerman Jones but I'm not sure, who wrote the following quotes I feel are significant:
"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. "
"A light source moving away from the listener (v is positive) would provide an fL that is less than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a red shift. When the light source is moving toward the listener (v is negative), then fL is greater than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum."
You don't even know the difference between light's velocity(which is fixed)aand it's frequency(which is not fixed)! And you want to tell us(some of whom are real physicists)about physics? Then you wonder why we all think you're stupid? It's because you realy ARE stupid, wonder no more.
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 12 2010, 03:24 AM)
Yeah.
It is.
A change in the FREQUENCY of light doesn't affect it's speed of propogation.
Red light, Blue light, don't matter as both moving at c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
Arthur
I knew about that stuff for years.
It's the difference in velocity between the light source and the observer that changes the difference in the speed of the light, changing the frequency with which the waves reach the observer. Totally different than with waves of a medium.
Do you know anywhere we can read quotes of Einstein explaining this stuff?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 12 2010, 11:21 AM)
No, no one here agrees with you that time does not exist, we know that even non physical concepts do exist.
I said it was a non physical concept from the very beginning. You apparently have never come close to understanding what I believe, though that hasn't stopped you from trying to act like an a*s about "it".
I said it was a non physical concept from the very beginning. You apparently have never come close to understanding what I believe, though that hasn't stopped you from trying to act like an a*s about "it".
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 12 2010, 11:21 AM)
. . .
You don't even know the difference between light's velocity(which is fixed)aand it's frequency(which is not fixed)!
Yes I do, and at:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/10/prweb289520.htm
we are told:
". . . Their outgoing signals require extra time to catch up to the receding space Fleet . . ."
meaning that the velocity of incoming light differs between objects that are not stationary in relation to each other. Most of the time the difference is so slight that it's not noticeable, but when it's great enough it becomes apparent. The increase in the velocity of the light changes the frequency with which the light reaches the observer, unlike with sound waves in a medium.
You don't even know the difference between light's velocity(which is fixed)aand it's frequency(which is not fixed)!
Yes I do, and at:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/10/prweb289520.htm
we are told:
". . . Their outgoing signals require extra time to catch up to the receding space Fleet . . ."
meaning that the velocity of incoming light differs between objects that are not stationary in relation to each other. Most of the time the difference is so slight that it's not noticeable, but when it's great enough it becomes apparent. The increase in the velocity of the light changes the frequency with which the light reaches the observer, unlike with sound waves in a medium.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 09:52 AM)
Do you know anywhere we can read quotes of Einstein explaining this stuff?
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 01:52 PM)
I knew about that stuff for years.
It's the difference in velocity between the light source and the observer that changes the difference in the speed of the light, changing the frequency with which the waves reach the observer. Totally different than with waves of a medium.
Do you know anywhere we can read quotes of Einstein explaining this stuff?
No it doesn't.
Not in real life.
If a spaceship is standing still and fires a laser forward the light travels at c.
If a spaceship is traveling at 0.5c and fires a laser forward, the light still only travels at c.
It's the difference in velocity between the light source and the observer that changes the difference in the speed of the light, changing the frequency with which the waves reach the observer. Totally different than with waves of a medium.
Do you know anywhere we can read quotes of Einstein explaining this stuff?
No it doesn't.
Not in real life.
If a spaceship is standing still and fires a laser forward the light travels at c.
If a spaceship is traveling at 0.5c and fires a laser forward, the light still only travels at c.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 08:52 AM)
I knew about that stuff for years.
It's the difference in velocity between the light source and the observer that changes the difference in the speed of the light, changing the frequency with which the waves reach the observer. Totally different than with waves of a medium.
Well then you may have "knew it", but you clearly didn't understand it:
NO
NO
NO
Say it with me:
The speed of light is CONSTANT.
When they say light takes longer to reach a target that is moving away from the sender it's because the distance that light has to travel increases while the light is on its way to the target and NOT because the speed of light's velocity has changed.
Arthur
It's the difference in velocity between the light source and the observer that changes the difference in the speed of the light, changing the frequency with which the waves reach the observer. Totally different than with waves of a medium.
Well then you may have "knew it", but you clearly didn't understand it:
QUOTE
It's the difference in velocity between the light source and the observer that changes the difference in the speed of the light,
NO
NO
NO
Say it with me:
The speed of light is CONSTANT.
When they say light takes longer to reach a target that is moving away from the sender it's because the distance that light has to travel increases while the light is on its way to the target and NOT because the speed of light's velocity has changed.
Arthur
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 08:52 AM)
Do you know anywhere we can read quotes of Einstein explaining this stuff?
Yeah, it's called a book. There's a place called a library that's just full of them. They'll even loan a few of them to you for free.
Yeah, it's called a book. There's a place called a library that's just full of them. They'll even loan a few of them to you for free.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Apr 12 2010, 03:57 AM)
Does the bass part reach you before the piccolo part does? No, I didn't think so. Your reference is wrong.
That's not the same thing. Sound is nothing more than vibrations in a medium. The waves only move so fast in a medium, and when combined velocities between source and listener cause a change in frequency it's because the waves are being compressed or elongated by the limits of the medium. Light is not vibrations in a medium but actual moving energy. There is no medium to restrict its rate. Since it is always emitted at the same velocity, making it in that way similar to sound waves, combined velocities between sources and observers can add to the velocity at which the light reaches the observer thereby increasing the frequency as well, unlike with sound which is restricted by the characteristics of the medium and the frequency change happens for a different reason. At least that's my understanding of it at this point.
That's not the same thing. Sound is nothing more than vibrations in a medium. The waves only move so fast in a medium, and when combined velocities between source and listener cause a change in frequency it's because the waves are being compressed or elongated by the limits of the medium. Light is not vibrations in a medium but actual moving energy. There is no medium to restrict its rate. Since it is always emitted at the same velocity, making it in that way similar to sound waves, combined velocities between sources and observers can add to the velocity at which the light reaches the observer thereby increasing the frequency as well, unlike with sound which is restricted by the characteristics of the medium and the frequency change happens for a different reason. At least that's my understanding of it at this point.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Apr 12 2010, 03:57 AM)
CORRECTION: (I went and read it) Your reference is correct, you just don't understand it. (The frequency changes, the speed at which it travels does not.)
The speed at which it travels doesn't change, but differences in velocity between sources and observers can cause a change in the velocity with which it reaches observers, causing a shift in frequency as well.
The speed at which it travels doesn't change, but differences in velocity between sources and observers can cause a change in the velocity with which it reaches observers, causing a shift in frequency as well.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 12 2010, 02:27 PM)
Well then you may have "knew it", but you clearly didn't understand it:
NO
NO
NO
Say it with me:
The speed of light is CONSTANT.
When they say light takes longer to reach a target that is moving away from the sender it's because the distance that light has to travel increases while the light is on its way to the target and NOT because the speed of light's velocity has changed.
Arthur
Meaning that the velocity with which it reaches the observer is different, and if that's what "time dilation" really is, then well I guess it's like everything else with you peope has been so far.
NO
NO
NO
Say it with me:
The speed of light is CONSTANT.
When they say light takes longer to reach a target that is moving away from the sender it's because the distance that light has to travel increases while the light is on its way to the target and NOT because the speed of light's velocity has changed.
Arthur
Meaning that the velocity with which it reaches the observer is different, and if that's what "time dilation" really is, then
well I guess it's like everything else with you peope has been so far.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 10:36 AM)
Meaning that the velocity with which it reaches the observer is different, and if that's what "time dilation" really is, then well I guess it's like everything else with you peope has been so far.
No, it means that the speed of light is the same no matter who measures it. This is the basis of relativity. Repeat: The Speed of Light is the SAME for ALL OBSERVERS.
You cannot observe light at ANY speed but c, no matter how fast or in what direction you are going.
well I guess it's like everything else with you peope has been so far. No, it means that the speed of light is the same no matter who measures it. This is the basis of relativity. Repeat: The Speed of Light is the SAME for ALL OBSERVERS.
You cannot observe light at ANY speed but c, no matter how fast or in what direction you are going.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 09:36 AM)
Meaning that the velocity with which it reaches the observer is different, and if that's what "time dilation" really is, then well I guess it's like everything else with you peope has been so far.
NO
NO
NO
You are confusing VELOCITY which is constant for light, with DURATION, which increases with distance that light has to travel.
Repeat after me:
The speed of light is CONSTANT.
Arthur
Note: To avoid sniping, SOL in a vacuum is constant. SOL in a medium may be slower, but nothing is faster than the SOL in a vacuum.
well I guess it's like everything else with you peope has been so far. NO
NO
NO
You are confusing VELOCITY which is constant for light, with DURATION, which increases with distance that light has to travel.
Repeat after me:
The speed of light is CONSTANT.
Arthur
Note: To avoid sniping, SOL in a vacuum is constant. SOL in a medium may be slower, but nothing is faster than the SOL in a vacuum.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 09:32 AM)
That's not the same thing. Sound is nothing more than vibrations in a medium. The waves only move so fast in a medium, and when combined velocities between source and listener cause a change in frequency it's because the waves are being compressed or elongated by the limits of the medium. Light is not vibrations in a medium but actual moving energy. There is no medium to restrict its rate. Since it is always emitted at the same velocity, making it in that way similar to sound waves, combined velocities between sources and observers can add to the velocity at which the light reaches the observer thereby increasing the frequency as well, unlike with sound which is restricted by the characteristics of the medium and the frequency change happens for a different reason. At least that's my understanding of it at this point.
The speed at which it travels doesn't change, but differences in velocity between sources and observers can cause a change in the velocity with which it reaches observers, causing a shift in frequency as well.
Your understanding is wrong.
Go to the library, tell them that you are an idiot and need help finding a book on relativity. They can assist you. Your condition may not be permanant.
The speed at which it travels doesn't change, but differences in velocity between sources and observers can cause a change in the velocity with which it reaches observers, causing a shift in frequency as well.
Your understanding is wrong.
Go to the library, tell them that you are an idiot and need help finding a book on relativity. They can assist you. Your condition may not be permanant.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
No, it means that the speed of light is the same no matter who measures it. This is the basis of relativity. Repeat: The Speed of Light is the SAME for ALL OBSERVERS.
You cannot observe light at ANY speed but c, no matter how fast or in what direction you are going.
I can't believe you, since everything is relative to everything else. If you move toward a light source your combined speeds will be ftl, and someone moving faster in the same direction will have a higher combined speed imo, unless you can provide something to show differently.
You cannot observe light at ANY speed but c, no matter how fast or in what direction you are going.
I can't believe you, since everything is relative to everything else. If you move toward a light source your combined speeds will be ftl, and someone moving faster in the same direction will have a higher combined speed imo, unless you can provide something to show differently.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Apr 12 2010, 03:00 PM)
Your understanding is wrong.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe. Maybe not.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 01:21 PM)
Maybe. Maybe not.
No maybe about it. I've posted several links explaining relativity. (I seriously doubt that you've ever even looked at one.)
Seriously, go to a library, check out (and then READ) a book on relativity. You may then realize how foolish you look.
No maybe about it. I've posted several links explaining relativity. (I seriously doubt that you've ever even looked at one.)
Seriously, go to a library, check out (and then READ) a book on relativity. You may then realize how foolish you look.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 02:19 PM)
I can't believe you, since everything is relative to everything else. If you move toward a light source your combined speeds will be ftl, and someone moving faster in the same direction will have a higher combined speed imo, unless you can provide something to show differently.
Except it wouldn't. That's the whole point of relativity. When light should (intuitively) appear to be traveling faster or slower than the observer, it is still measured as the exact same speed. This is because time itself slows down, ensuring that light will be measured at the same speed.
This isn't theoretical, it is an established fact that light is ALWAYS measured as 'c' by ALL observers. Relativity just explains why it happens.
Except it wouldn't. That's the whole point of relativity. When light should (intuitively) appear to be traveling faster or slower than the observer, it is still measured as the exact same speed. This is because time itself slows down, ensuring that light will be measured at the same speed.
This isn't theoretical, it is an established fact that light is ALWAYS measured as 'c' by ALL observers. Relativity just explains why it happens.
I am wondering at what point it becomes obvious that some people.. like NopEda... are either trolls or have no possibility of ever actually understanding the actual science.
In the case of NopEda it's been obvious that he simply cannot or will not try to understand what is actual science and what is stuff he just made up.
Is there any point in continuing to explain things to him?
In the case of NopEda it's been obvious that he simply cannot or will not try to understand what is actual science and what is stuff he just made up.
Is there any point in continuing to explain things to him?
nopeda simply refuses to believe anything he's told if it doesn't fit his preconceptions.
Arguing with him is futile.
Arguing with him is futile.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 06:21 PM)
Maybe. Maybe not.
If the GPS works then you are wrong.
Does the GPS work?
If the GPS works then you are wrong.
Does the GPS work?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Apr 12 2010, 06:25 PM)
No maybe about it. I've posted several links explaining relativity. (I seriously doubt that you've ever even looked at one.)
I looked back through this whole thread and didn't see where you posted any links about it.
I looked back through this whole thread and didn't see where you posted any links about it.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 12 2010, 06:28 PM)
Except it wouldn't. That's the whole point of relativity. When light should (intuitively) appear to be traveling faster or slower than the observer, it is still measured as the exact same speed. This is because time itself slows down, ensuring that light will be measured at the same speed.
Well it can be red of blue shifted, so if the frequency isn't altered because of increased or decreased velocity of the light itself in relation to the observer, then it must be restricted to a particular speed in relation to the medium (or whatever) of the universe and compressed or elongated causing the changes in frequency like sound waves.
Well it can be red of blue shifted, so if the frequency isn't altered because of increased or decreased velocity of the light itself in relation to the observer, then it must be restricted to a particular speed in relation to the medium (or whatever) of the universe and compressed or elongated causing the changes in frequency like sound waves.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 01:38 PM)
I looked back through this whole thread and didn't see where you posted any links about it.
You've started many threads. They've all blurred together into one large mass of stupdity. It's not my fault that you're too brain dead to find the posted links.
Go to the library, you can find personal one on one help there.
You've started many threads. They've all blurred together into one large mass of stupdity. It's not my fault that you're too brain dead to find the posted links.
Go to the library, you can find personal one on one help there.
Here is a link to Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
It won't do any good. Nopeda won't read it, and if he did, he wouldn't understand it.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
It won't do any good. Nopeda won't read it, and if he did, he wouldn't understand it.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Mar 3 2010, 11:55 PM)
If I understand the clock-slowing logic, it happens because in lower-gravity or faster velocity situations, the ratio between energy and momentum decreases.
I'm not sure I said this exactly right. What I mean is that the same amount of energy added to an object results in less momentum. Is this what is meant by "time slowing down?"
A quick thing that helped me to understand spacetime dilation is I just say at the speed of light, time=0 it stops.
I made a chart.
I charted spacetime 0-1 for X axis , and lightspeed 300,000 -0 for y axis so zero spacetime would be warp1 right?
I'm not sure I said this exactly right. What I mean is that the same amount of energy added to an object results in less momentum. Is this what is meant by "time slowing down?"
A quick thing that helped me to understand spacetime dilation is I just say at the speed of light, time=0 it stops.
I made a chart.
I charted spacetime 0-1 for X axis , and lightspeed 300,000 -0 for y axis so zero spacetime would be warp1 right?
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 01:19 PM)
I can't believe you, since everything is relative to everything else. If you move toward a light source your combined speeds will be ftl,
Combined speeds DO NOT indicate that EITHER object is going faster than light.
We've covered this MULTIPLE TIMES.
There is no issue with the SUM of the speed of two objects exceeding the Speed of Light, because neither object itself is exceeding the speed of light.
And this is where intuition fails.
If you are flying in a rocket at 1,000 MPH and fire a bullet that has a muzzle velocity of 3,000 MPH, the bullet will leave the barrel going 4,000 MPH, because muzzle velocity is ADDITIVE to the speed of the rocket.
BUT
Light is NOT additive.
Light leaves the rocket at the same speed.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is sitting still or if the rocket is going half the speed of light.
And this is where intuition fails.
If you are flying in a rocket at 1,000 MPH and fire a bullet that has a muzzle velocity of 3,000 MPH, the bullet will leave the barrel going 4,000 MPH, because muzzle velocity is ADDITIVE to the speed of the rocket.
BUT
Light is NOT additive.
Light leaves the rocket at the same speed.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is sitting still or if the rocket is going half the speed of light.
This constancy of the speed of light means, counter to intuition, that speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear faster by approaching at speed towards the material source that is emitting light. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear slower by receding from the source at speed.
Combined speeds DO NOT indicate that EITHER object is going faster than light.
We've covered this MULTIPLE TIMES.
There is no issue with the SUM of the speed of two objects exceeding the Speed of Light, because neither object itself is exceeding the speed of light.
QUOTE
and someone moving faster in the same direction will have a higher combined speed imo, unless you can provide something to show differently.
And this is where intuition fails.
If you are flying in a rocket at 1,000 MPH and fire a bullet that has a muzzle velocity of 3,000 MPH, the bullet will leave the barrel going 4,000 MPH, because muzzle velocity is ADDITIVE to the speed of the rocket.
BUT
Light is NOT additive.
Light leaves the rocket at the same speed.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is sitting still or if the rocket is going half the speed of light.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and someone moving faster in the same direction will have a higher combined speed imo, unless you can provide something to show differently. |
And this is where intuition fails.
If you are flying in a rocket at 1,000 MPH and fire a bullet that has a muzzle velocity of 3,000 MPH, the bullet will leave the barrel going 4,000 MPH, because muzzle velocity is ADDITIVE to the speed of the rocket.
BUT
Light is NOT additive.
Light leaves the rocket at the same speed.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is sitting still or if the rocket is going half the speed of light.
This constancy of the speed of light means, counter to intuition, that speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear faster by approaching at speed towards the material source that is emitting light. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear slower by receding from the source at speed.
QUOTE (nopEda+Apr 12 2010, 06:43 PM)
Well it can be red of blue shifted, so if the frequency isn't altered because of increased or decreased velocity of the light itself in relation to the observer, then it must be restricted to a particular speed in relation to the medium (or whatever) of the universe and compressed or elongated causing the changes in frequency like sound waves.
This shows something else where you are wrong but won't change.
There is no background medium.
There is also no background the way you think of it.
This shows something else where you are wrong but won't change.
There is no background medium.
There is also no background the way you think of it.
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 12 2010, 07:07 PM)
Here is a link to Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
It won't do any good. Nopeda won't read it, and if he did, he wouldn't understand it.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Please try to be more specific with URLs. There are a bunch of links.
It won't do any good. Nopeda won't read it, and if he did, he wouldn't understand it.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Please try to be more specific with URLs. There are a bunch of links.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 12 2010, 07:33 PM)
There is no issue with the SUM of the speed of two objects exceeding the Speed of Light, because neither object itself is exceeding the speed of light.
And this is where intuition fails.
If you are flying in a rocket at 1,000 MPH and fire a bullet that has a muzzle velocity of 3,000 MPH, the bullet will leave the barrel going 4,000 MPH, because muzzle velocity is ADDITIVE to the speed of the rocket.
BUT
Light is NOT additive.
Light leaves the rocket at the same speed.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is sitting still or if the rocket is going half the speed of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Arthur
The velocity at which light is emitted in relation to other objects is a physical thing that must be accounted for, unless you can say why it should not be and what happens to the energy involved making it "disappear" or whatever.
And this is where intuition fails.
If you are flying in a rocket at 1,000 MPH and fire a bullet that has a muzzle velocity of 3,000 MPH, the bullet will leave the barrel going 4,000 MPH, because muzzle velocity is ADDITIVE to the speed of the rocket.
BUT
Light is NOT additive.
Light leaves the rocket at the same speed.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is sitting still or if the rocket is going half the speed of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Arthur
The velocity at which light is emitted in relation to other objects is a physical thing that must be accounted for, unless you can say why it should not be and what happens to the energy involved making it "disappear" or whatever.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 12 2010, 08:08 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Well it can be red of blue shifted, so if the frequency isn't altered because of increased or decreased velocity of the light itself in relation to the observer, then it must be restricted to a particular speed in relation to the medium (or whatever) of the universe and compressed or elongated causing the changes in frequency like sound waves.
This shows something else where you are wrong but won't change.
There is no background medium.
To me there must be something like a medium to cause the restriction, or there is no restriction and people are wrong for believing there is. So far I believe people are wrong for believing there is.
This shows something else where you are wrong but won't change.
There is no background medium.
To me there must be something like a medium to cause the restriction, or there is no restriction and people are wrong for believing there is. So far I believe people are wrong for believing there is.
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.