1. Hi,

My current assingment is to review Relativity. This is not a job but a hobby.

I have found with strong evidence several irregularities with the current statements and predictions of Relativity.

I please apply for your understanding that English is my second language and several gramatical errors might be found in my writings.

I will start with the main questions which were sent to NASA and I didn't receive their answers yet. The questions are the following:

1)- What is the factual evidence that time exists physically?

2)- Who made the tests and experiments solely to prove the physical existence of time?

3)- When these tests and experiments were performed?

4)- What methods were used for this purpose?

5) Is there any instrument capable to detect the physical passage of time?

If someone here -other than NASA can answer these questions with the proper factual evidence will be greately appreciated.

Thanks.

2.

I have heard that atomic clocks suffer of variations and the reason given is that "time dilates" by the speed of the satellites and other similar explanations.

I reviewed the words of the great scientist Albert Einstein when he used the analogy of the train wagon traveling in reference to the train rail. I love his analogy because he indeed discarded very well the former classic mechanics.

Well, we know by fact that a man sitting in a train wagon traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail will also be traveling at 60 miles per hour, if this man walks forward or backwards inside the wagon he still traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail.

Well, this is interesting because we have a peculiar situation here:

1)- Our planet Earth travels at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

2)- Our satellites carrying the atomic clocks travel at 7 kilometers per second around Earth.

3)- By looking at the pictures and videos made by satellites sent far away from us, we can practically see that our planet Earth is traveling together with our satellites all at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

4) This informnation reveals that an atomic clock located on ground and that an atomic clock installed in a satellite are both traveling together at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

Question: Where is the dilatation of time?

Beyond this irregularity:

1)- A satellite which left our planet and travels to Mars at 7 kilometers per second will actually travel slower than our planet which travels at 29 kilometers per second.

2)- A clock installed on ground will travel faster than a clock installed in a satellite going to Mars. We are using the information of the speed of our planet and the speed of the satellite in reference to the Sun.

3)- In other words, a space ship with a tripulation going to Mars will also travel slower than the ones living on earth which are traveling in our planet around the Sun.

4)- This is a contrariety.

Something is not working right here. The data is correct, the frame of reference using the Sun is correct, but the data given by clocks do not correspond properly to this frame of reference.

4. I am going to reply to you in an "outside the square" manner, initially.

"Time" according to physics, well, stand back and look at how physics really uses time. TIME is used as a verification of the laws of physics, that they are reproducible. Basically, you conduct an experiment, and then you try to repeat that same experiment to prove that law holds true in any event, in any time frame (even though time is not defined).

On a global scale, we define time by repeating cycles, like the seasons, the years, and so on, as though when we hit a familiar cycle, we say that time has passed a certain way and now we are back where we started, as though, paradoxicaly no time has passed.

In ancient civilisations, that way of measuring time lead to the establishment of grand solar calendars that equated how long it would take for a complete cycle of the system they lived in to transpire, when the heavens would be aligned in the same way again. Some meausre those cycles to be around 12,000 years, some more.

Conquer, if I can also add, physics does address time. "Time" to physics is the origin of the big bang, before which there was no time. Physics defines time in a way convenient to their belief in a BIG bang. Thus far in the world of physics, no one with a physics degree is willing to challenge that.

BUT, as I said, there are other views of time, more cyclical, more circular. The ULTIMATE concept of system time, as one cycle of our own species, for instance, is the idea that in however many tens of thousands of years time, we will have colonised a new planet which will then become the new earth under a constellation similar to what was present in our early civilisations. That would to us be a complete cycle, a repeat if you will of "reality", as we would perceive it. Time, according to those calculations, will be as long as that takes, and then fragmented up in cycles, in calendars, as we know it.

Now to reply according to modern physics, I don't know how to answer that question, because time is one of those assumed things, in modern physics.

I have a theory that tackles the insubstantial quality of time, by addressing how we traditionally accept that time is understood as a cyclical thing (www below), of course while also addressing quantum and nuclear physics.

5. Originally Posted by conquer

I have heard that atomic clocks suffer of variations and the reason given is that "time dilates" by the speed of the satellites and other similar explanations.

I reviewed the words of the great scientist Albert Einstein when he used the analogy of the train wagon traveling in reference to the train rail. I love his analogy because he indeed discarded very well the former classic mechanics.

Well, we know by fact that a man sitting in a train wagon traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail will also be traveling at 60 miles per hour, if this man walks forward or backwards inside the wagon he still traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail.

Well, this is interesting because we have a peculiar situation here:

1)- Our planet Earth travels at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

2)- Our satellites carrying the atomic clocks travel at 7 kilometers per second around Earth.

3)- By looking at the pictures and videos made by satellites sent far away from us, we can practically see that our planet Earth is traveling together with our satellites all at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

4) This informnation reveals that an atomic clock located on ground and that an atomic clock installed in a satellite are both traveling together at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

Question: Where is the dilatation of time?

Beyond this irregularity:
The satellite clock is travleing around Earth at 11 kilometers per second, whereas the clock on the ground is not. That's the difference.

1)- A satellite which left our planet and travels to Mars at 7 kilometers per second will actually travel slower than our planet which travels at 29 kilometers per second.
7 kilometers per second relative to what? :wink:

2)- A clock installed on ground will travel faster than a clock installed in a satellite going to Mars. We are using the information of the speed of our planet and the speed of the satellite in reference to the Sun.
Same as above...

3)- In other words, a space ship with a tripulation going to Mars will also travel slower than the ones living on earth which are traveling in our planet around the Sun.

4)- This is a contrariety.
No. At 29 km/s you JUST stay in Earth's orbit, at 7 km/s you would fall into the Sun. In order to go Mars, you ought to slow down to match Mars speed, but only to an average 24 km/s...

6. Here’s a rather interesting bit of trivia that always really aggravates the relativity-deniers: the GPS system incorporates relativity into its calculation. Since the clocks on the satellites are moving very quickly relative to a person on the ground who is using GPS to figure out his location, they have to adjust for the time dilation in order to produce accurate results.

7. Originally Posted by streamSystems
I am going to reply to you in an "outside the square" manner, initially.

"Time" according to physics, well, stand back and look at how physics really uses time. TIME is used as a verification of the laws of physics, that they are reproducible. Basically, you conduct an experiment, and then you try to repeat that same experiment to prove that law holds true in any event, in any time frame (even though time is not defined).

On a global scale, we define time by repeating cycles, like the seasons, the years, and so on, as though when we hit a familiar cycle, we say that time has passed a certain way and now we are back where we started, as though, paradoxicaly no time has passed.

In ancient civilisations, that way of measuring time lead to the establishment of grand solar calendars that equated how long it would take for a complete cycle of the system they lived in to transpire, when the heavens would be aligned in the same way again. Some meausre those cycles to be around 12,000 years, some more.

Conquer, if I can also add, physics does address time. "Time" to physics is the origin of the big bang, before which there was no time. Physics defines time in a way convenient to their belief in a BIG bang. Thus far in the world of physics, no one with a physics degree is willing to challenge that.

BUT, as I said, there are other views of time, more cyclical, more circular. The ULTIMATE concept of system time, as one cycle of our own species, for instance, is the idea that in however many tens of thousands of years time, we will have colonised a new planet which will then become the new earth under a constellation similar to what was present in our early civilisations. That would to us be a complete cycle, a repeat if you will of "reality", as we would perceive it. Time, according to those calculations, will be as long as that takes, and then fragmented up in cycles, in calendars, as we know it.

Now to reply according to modern physics, I don't know how to answer that question, because time is one of those assumed things, in modern physics.

I have a theory that tackles the insubstantial quality of time, by addressing how we traditionally accept that time is understood as a cyclical thing (www below), of course while also addressing quantum and nuclear physics.
What you said is very interesting and it is in agreement with a simple fact: Time is not physically existent and by consequence time cannot flow or dilate.

I was reviewing the origins of Relativity by reading the words of Einstein about it and he mentioned that he was deeply in philosophy before arriving to create his theory.

Now well, in our past when Science was more primitive the branches of philosophy and science walked togather.

Today the scenario is different. Science has separated itself from philosophy because science had a tool to verify its thoughts, and this tool is the scientific method.

In philosophy you don't need or you don't have to verify your thoughts, you just let your ideas to float in your brain and give them to others.

As Relativity was born in base of philosophy instead of a primeval factual phenomenon, this approach of Relativity is found false by the fact that the ideas of Einstein were based in philosophical thoughts instead of a verifiable primeval source.

No one in those years reviewed the possible existence of a physical time as flowing, everybody in those years took it for granted.

This is a common error in several institutions of science which don't want to make a review of Relativity by demonstrating its falsety by its lack of a factual primeval source.

You know that in order to create a theory of science the main requirement is to have a factual primeval source, in this case, for Relativity is to have the experimental evidence that time exists physically and that flows.

Only after that, this theory can explain further consequences of time as a dilatation of it by certain causes.

This is to say, you cannot affirm that god exists because miracles. In science you must prove the physical existence of a god before claiming that he caused the miracles.

Relativity is not science, by its origins Relativity fits very well in the shelves of philosophy.

8. Originally Posted by Lucifer
Originally Posted by conquer

I have heard that atomic clocks suffer of variations and the reason given is that "time dilates" by the speed of the satellites and other similar explanations.

I reviewed the words of the great scientist Albert Einstein when he used the analogy of the train wagon traveling in reference to the train rail. I love his analogy because he indeed discarded very well the former classic mechanics.

Well, we know by fact that a man sitting in a train wagon traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail will also be traveling at 60 miles per hour, if this man walks forward or backwards inside the wagon he still traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail.

Well, this is interesting because we have a peculiar situation here:

1)- Our planet Earth travels at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

2)- Our satellites carrying the atomic clocks travel at 7 kilometers per second around Earth.

3)- By looking at the pictures and videos made by satellites sent far away from us, we can practically see that our planet Earth is traveling together with our satellites all at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

4) This informnation reveals that an atomic clock located on ground and that an atomic clock installed in a satellite are both traveling together at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

Question: Where is the dilatation of time?

Beyond this irregularity:
The satellite clock is travleing around Earth at 11 kilometers per second, whereas the clock on the ground is not. That's the difference.

1)- A satellite which left our planet and travels to Mars at 7 kilometers per second will actually travel slower than our planet which travels at 29 kilometers per second.
7 kilometers per second relative to what? :wink:

2)- A clock installed on ground will travel faster than a clock installed in a satellite going to Mars. We are using the information of the speed of our planet and the speed of the satellite in reference to the Sun.
Same as above...

3)- In other words, a space ship with a tripulation going to Mars will also travel slower than the ones living on earth which are traveling in our planet around the Sun.

4)- This is a contrariety.
No. At 29 km/s you JUST stay in Earth's orbit, at 7 km/s you would fall into the Sun. In order to go Mars, you ought to slow down to match Mars speed, but only to an average 24 km/s...
So you are telling that Relativity only works in the frames of reference that you select, and that if I select a different frame of reference my position is scientifically invalid because I didn't select yours. I don't understand your position, it seems to be very weird for me.

I am using the frame of reference of the motion of the clock on ground (Earth) with the motion of the clock installed in the satellite orbiting around Earth, both in reference to the Sun.

Both clocks -the one on ground and the one in the satellite- are traveling at 29 kilometers per second.

Excuse me but this is enough evidence that Relativity is false. There is not such time dilatation. The causes of the variations in atomic clocks strongly appears to be a malfunction.

You know that low pressure or very low gravity does affect matter without exception.

You know this fact if your information is updated to what the tests made in space are showing. For example, liquid metals which cannot be mixed on Earth have been observed to mix in outer space to the low gravity which allowed it.

Humans suffer of fast aging health when we stay for long periods of time like a year in the space station.

You have experiments with spiders, dogs, plants, minerals, and more. All matter in general which behave in a known way on Earth has showed changes in its behaviour in outer space.

No well, atomic clocks have been built and calibrate under our current pressure or gravity on Earth, and in base of the observtions made about how low gravity affects matter without exceptions, we can conclude that the variation of data from atomic clocks in outer space is caused by malfunction.

Here on Earth, the atomic clocks accruracy has been tested with temperature and maybe other agents which might affect their functional work, but we cannot imitate the low gravity status and neither the cosmic radiation as it is found in outer space.

For this reason atomic clocks malfunction. I can tell you that if you built and calibrate an atomic clock in outer space, and set its data with an atomic clock installed on ground, such difference of data won't happen because you have calibrated the functional work in accord to that environment with a different gravity.

This is like boiling water which heats up at different rates in accord to its location like the sea level and the top of a high mountain.

9. 1)- What is the factual evidence that time exists physically?
As far as I know, none. I don't think time is physical in any way nor that it can be altered/"jumped" (time travel for example). If you "jump" anything I would say you "jump" distance, not time.

10. Originally Posted by conquer
No well, atomic clocks have been built and calibrate under our current pressure or gravity on Earth, and in base of the observtions made about how low gravity affects matter without exceptions, we can conclude that the variation of data from atomic clocks in outer space is caused by malfunction.
You don't have to go into space - you can demonstrate it with atomic clocks that are flown under normal gravity and pressure on jet aircraft.

But for the sake of argument, I will admit that maybe the atomic clocks that were used to test time dilation were malfunctioning. But doesn't it seem like kind of a strange coincidence to you that the clocks didn't just malfunction, but malfunctioned in a way that gave results that were exactly consistent with what was predicted by relativity? I mean, it's not like scientists just noticed that the clocks slowed down by some random amount and patted themselves on the back. They calculated how much the clocks were expected to slow down based on their velocity and position, and the change in the clocks matched up with those calculations.

Also, that's not the only experimental proof of time dilation. You can also demonstrate it by measuring the decay times of particles - unstable particles will decay more slowly when they are placed in circumstances that cause time to slow down for them. And again, their decay time isn't just slowed down by some random amount - it's consistently slowed down by the amount predicted by the relativity equations.

11. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
Here’s a rather interesting bit of trivia that always really aggravates the relativity-deniers: the GPS system incorporates relativity into its calculation. Since the clocks on the satellites are moving very quickly relative to a person on the ground who is using GPS to figure out his location, they have to adjust for the time dilation in order to produce accurate results.
Actually Relativity wasn't needed to make those calculations.

The adjusments made to the variations of data from atomic clocks in outer space was made in base of trial and error.

Who knows who incorporated the "chart" given by the supporters of Relativity, but as far as I know the inventor of the atomic clock, L. Essen who let to the followers of Einstein to make experiments with his clock rejected Einstein's relativity by several reasons. Essen wrote a book and other articles showing the errors found in the theory.

In 1977 he wrote a letter to the journal Nature -which was rejected, of course-,where he state that the claims of Relativity with atomic clocks showing a dilatation of time are not accurate at all. Eleven years later he wrote another article where he showed that Relativity is invalid by the several errors found in it.

I wrote before that Einstein based his theoriy in philosophy, and Essen also noticed it by observing that: "Einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists".

These are the words of the inventor of the atomic clock about the claims of Relativity of a dilatation of time and similar phenomena.

And I strongly agree with him.

12. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
Originally Posted by conquer
No well, atomic clocks have been built and calibrate under our current pressure or gravity on Earth, and in base of the observtions made about how low gravity affects matter without exceptions, we can conclude that the variation of data from atomic clocks in outer space is caused by malfunction.
You don't have to go into space - you can demonstrate it with atomic clocks that are flown under normal gravity and pressure on jet aircraft.

According to Hawking in his book A Brief Story of Time, he claims that clocks installed under and above a water tank have already showed variations in their data. This is very consistent with the boiling water observation which is different in accord to its location.

Are you gonna tell me that time causes it?

Before you respond it in an affirmative way, you must show the physical existence of time, because you must demonstrate the flowing of time in each level going up and the detection of such flowing with a device.

Remember that in science we must demonstrate with facual evidence our positions. I can see what you claim but what you claim is based in a physically existent time. And this is what neither you and I can see by any means: such physical existing time.

But for the sake of argument, I will admit that maybe the atomic clocks that were used to test time dilation were malfunctioning. But doesn't it seem like kind of a strange coincidence to you that the clocks didn't just malfunction, but malfunctioned in a way that gave results that were exactly consistent with what was predicted by relativity? I mean, it's not like scientists just noticed that the clocks slowed down by some random amount and patted themselves on the back. They calculated how much the clocks were expected to slow down based on their velocity and position, and the change in the clocks matched up with those calculations.
That depends of who is doing the charts and when the charts were made.

What I can see is that Relativity has been imposed as the answer instead of being used as an alternative answer to the observations.

The crude reality is that according to the inventor of the atomic clock, Mr Essen, the supporters of Relativity didn't know what they were doing. This scenario takes us to the factual trial and error attempts which is how science has grew up mostly in all its existence.

After the variations of data were obtained by trial and error, anyone with good mathematical skills can make a chart proving that "Relativity predicted it".

For example, before 1900's, some experiments where made and it was observed that by high speeds increases the mass of the moving object. This is he case of J.J. Thomson inn Cambridge and W. Kaufmann in Goittingen. Both scientists investigated the way in which fast catode rays appeared to have changes in their mass in accord to their speed. Also, some years later, -still before Einstein's papers- F. Hasenohrl showed that radiation enclosed in a vessel increased that vessel's resistance to acceleration, and that its mass was indeed affected in the process. Now well, we have 1900 when Poincare -the discoverer of the formula e=mc^2- suggested that the inertia or resistance to acceleration was a property of all energy and not merely to electromagnetic energy.

But, what do you read in most books of Physics or in web sites about Einstein?...You read that "Einstein predicted such phenomena".

How it can be that he predicted something which was already an experimental fact?

Somebody appears to work hard to create such fairy story and to hide the real one.

The same as well, you are assuming that before the creation of the atomic clocks the chart of such variation of data was already in existence predicting the differences. Come on, the chart appeared after the trial and error tests were made and it was found that clocks showed variations in their data by several reasons.

Also, that's not the only experimental proof of time dilation. You can also demonstrate it by measuring the decay times of particles - unstable particles will decay more slowly when they are placed in circumstances that cause time to slow down for them. And again, their decay time isn't just slowed down by some random amount - it's consistently slowed down by the amount predicted by the relativity equations.

I think that you better review what is a Muon first before trusting what Relativity appears to predict about such changes in their duration.

13. Originally Posted by Obviously
1)- What is the factual evidence that time exists physically?
As far as I know, none. I don't think time is physical in any way nor that it can be altered/"jumped" (time travel for example). If you "jump" anything I would say you "jump" distance, not time.
I agree.

Time cannot dilate and neither be pulled by gravity.

Several of the current theories of science must be reviewed because they seem to be false and they must be discarded.

14. Originally Posted by conquer
Originally Posted by Lucifer
Originally Posted by conquer

I have heard that atomic clocks suffer of variations and the reason given is that "time dilates" by the speed of the satellites and other similar explanations.

I reviewed the words of the great scientist Albert Einstein when he used the analogy of the train wagon traveling in reference to the train rail. I love his analogy because he indeed discarded very well the former classic mechanics.

Well, we know by fact that a man sitting in a train wagon traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail will also be traveling at 60 miles per hour, if this man walks forward or backwards inside the wagon he still traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail.

Well, this is interesting because we have a peculiar situation here:

1)- Our planet Earth travels at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

2)- Our satellites carrying the atomic clocks travel at 7 kilometers per second around Earth.

3)- By looking at the pictures and videos made by satellites sent far away from us, we can practically see that our planet Earth is traveling together with our satellites all at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

4) This informnation reveals that an atomic clock located on ground and that an atomic clock installed in a satellite are both traveling together at 29 kilometers per second around the Sun.

Question: Where is the dilatation of time?

Beyond this irregularity:
The satellite clock is travleing around Earth at 11 kilometers per second, whereas the clock on the ground is not. That's the difference.

1)- A satellite which left our planet and travels to Mars at 7 kilometers per second will actually travel slower than our planet which travels at 29 kilometers per second.
7 kilometers per second relative to what? :wink:

2)- A clock installed on ground will travel faster than a clock installed in a satellite going to Mars. We are using the information of the speed of our planet and the speed of the satellite in reference to the Sun.
Same as above...

3)- In other words, a space ship with a tripulation going to Mars will also travel slower than the ones living on earth which are traveling in our planet around the Sun.

4)- This is a contrariety.
No. At 29 km/s you JUST stay in Earth's orbit, at 7 km/s you would fall into the Sun. In order to go Mars, you ought to slow down to match Mars speed, but only to an average 24 km/s...
So you are telling that Relativity only works in the frames of reference that you select, and that if I select a different frame of reference my position is scientifically invalid because I didn't select yours. I don't understand your position, it seems to be very weird for me.

I am using the frame of reference of the motion of the clock on ground (Earth) with the motion of the clock installed in the satellite orbiting around Earth, both in reference to the Sun.

Both clocks -the one on ground and the one in the satellite- are traveling at 29 kilometers per second.
But dude, the clock in orbit is in a different reference frame than a clock on the surface of earth. And this is precisely why there is a relativistic effect, because they are in different reference frames.

They're NOT moving at 29 km/s around the sun. One of them is half the time moving faster and half the time moving slower as it orbits the Earth. Also its orbital speed relative to sun varies as it's closer or farther to the sun as it orbits. The clock in orbit is more massive as it has a certain amount of kinetic energy in it which the other lacks. Also it is farther from the center of gravity of Earth and thus under a weaker gravity field. And of course one of them is moving at 11 km/s relative to the reference frame where the other clock is. And as the clock in orbit is in a different reference frame, then it suffers a relativistic effect. Is that simple.

Relativity is about local reference frames. Different reference frames lead to different relative observations. Every object in the universe is in its own local reference frame -relativity shows up when the differences are large enough. Like orbiting the Earth at 11 km/s for months or moving around the planet at 280 m/s aboard a jetplane for years, versus staying in a lab. 8)

It's not hard to figure Relativity is wrong when you don't even get the concept right... :wink:

15. Originally Posted by conquer
Originally Posted by Obviously
1)- What is the factual evidence that time exists physically?
As far as I know, none. I don't think time is physical in any way nor that it can be altered/"jumped" (time travel for example). If you "jump" anything I would say you "jump" distance, not time.
I agree.

Time cannot dilate and neither be pulled by gravity.

Several of the current theories of science must be reviewed because they seem to be false and they must be discarded.

I agree as well. I believe time is a standard, a constant, that we use in an equally divisible fashion, as our education with calendars and watches demonstrates (thanks to all my sponosrs at "citizen", and of course the guardians of "Big Ben").

I believe that to properly understand that standard of time, we need to go beyond the simple big bang theory of time and consider if our reference in the universe actually exhibits "cycles", namely that our position under the stars, our universal reference, repeats, as the ancient calendars symbolised. THEN we will have a tapestry to explain how a universal FORCE can exhibit a constant feature with time, and thus a cicular-motion trait (as the theory at the www feature below extolls). Remember, an object that returns to the context it was in via motion in undergoing a type of CONSTANT universal force would be said to be undergoing a force, an acceleration, and as a constant one returning to it's initial context, a harmonic one, a ciruclar one.

If time is just a theoretical standard, as you say it is, then why don't you create theoretical dimensions for time, as I have, the theoretical dimensions of time before and time after and then do the circular-trig calculus between those two dimensions, as I have. You should come up with the same results on the construction of space-time. In theory, space-time won't lie to you if that premise is correct. You will have arrived at the G.U.T.

The reason why phsyics seems like a string of equations about space-time ALL KNOTTED UP is because no one has made the simple definition of what "time" is. My theory, even though it seems simple, justifies itself in not being knotted......anywhere, in regard to time.[/b][/i]

I think science, scientists, should begin to get more serious about their definition of "time". I believe that with time as a "continuum" relevant to a constant "force", which is basically what scientists are looking for in a grand equation "anyway", the knotted mess we understand relativity to be can be unknotted. I also believe that theory is already evident.

16. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Originally Posted by conquer
Originally Posted by Obviously
1)- What is the factual evidence that time exists physically?
As far as I know, none. I don't think time is physical in any way nor that it can be altered/"jumped" (time travel for example). If you "jump" anything I would say you "jump" distance, not time.
I agree.

Time cannot dilate and neither be pulled by gravity.

Several of the current theories of science must be reviewed because they seem to be false and they must be discarded.

I agree as well. I believe time is a standard, a constant, that we use in an equally divisible fashion, as our education with calendars and watches demonstrates (thanks to all my sponosrs at "citizen", and of course the guardians of "Big Ben").
Yes, time is a standard reference data obtained by comparing our motion with the cycle of the rotation of Earth. Today, time is also the data of reference obtained by comparing the motion of things with the standard cycle of the vibration frequency of the atom of Caesium.

Calendars and clocks must pass to the updating and upgrading repairs continually. For example, our calendars need to have an additional day every certain numbers of years, and also the Big Ben need to be calibrated continually in order to provide a more accurate data of time. Coins are used to be added to or took out of its weights for this purpose.

I believe that to properly understand that standard of time, we need to go beyond the simple big bang theory of time and consider if our reference in the universe actually exhibits "cycles", namely that our position under the stars, our universal reference, repeats, as the ancient calendars symbolised. THEN we will have a tapestry to explain how a universal FORCE can exhibit a constant feature with time, and thus a cicular-motion trait (as the theory at the www feature below extolls). Remember, an object that returns to the context it was in via motion in undergoing a type of CONSTANT universal force would be said to be undergoing a force, an acceleration, and as a constant one returning to it's initial context, a harmonic one, a ciruclar one.
Actually no observations about such cycles have been made, the current observations are of a Universe which shows bodies in continued motion. We see stars going away and stars and galaxies colliding one with another. If you please can provide at least one observation of such Force ehibiting a constant feature with time.

As it is understood, time is a reference data which can have variations as a measure. For example, if you move to Mars, you must calibrate your clocks to the rotation of this planet in order to obtain your new seconds, minutes, hours and days. As the duration of Mars' rotation is different than ours, you will need to set your clocks to what your new home provides you as the standard motion.

Then, the measure called time is not universal but it is obtained in accord of the location of the observer. For example, you have a similar scenario with meters, centimeters and millimeters with yards, feet and inches. This are two different measures which were obtained from two different places. Today we use both. We have the same scenario with the measure for temperature and so and so.

So, from our point of observation we have created our measure of time in base of our standard motions: The rotation of Earth, the orbit of Earth around the Sun, and the counting of 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the atom of Caesium to obtain a new second.

If time is just a theoretical standard, as you say it is, then why don't you create theoretical dimensions for time, as I have, the theoretical dimensions of time before and time after and then do the circular-trig calculus between those two dimensions, as I have. You should come up with the same results on the construction of space-time. In theory, space-time won't lie to you if that premise is correct. You will have arrived at the G.U.T.
The use of one or two dimensions in paper is very useful for to make calculations and make more easy the understanding of things, but our universe is not unidimensionalb and neither is found siolely with two dimensions in any scenario. You have a piece of paper and the paper still is tri-dimensional. You write a dot in the paper and the dot still is tri-dimensional.

Now well, if you are talking about "the reference of time before and after an event" you can enjoy your capabilities with great pleasure. But please beware of not falling in the imagination that such past and future still existing.

The reason why phsyics seems like a string of equations about space-time ALL KNOTTED UP is because no one has made the simple definition of what "time" is. My theory, even though it seems simple, justifies itself in not being knotted......anywhere, in regard to time.[/b][/i]
Yes, this is the amazing thing I found when I reviewed Relativity. No one of its supporters have ever defined time as a physical existing phenomenon. On the contrary, they have avoided to define it and all of them have jumped to declare that time dilates, that time is pulled, that time flows in a certain arrow, and more.

I find such ideas as falsifiable with the application of the scientific method.

I think science, scientists, should begin to get more serious about their definition of "time". I believe that with time as a "continuum" relevant to a constant "force", which is basically what scientists are looking for in a grand equation "anyway", the knotted mess we understand relativity to be can be unknotted. I also believe that theory is already evident.
So far, I have sent five questions to NASA some days ago and still I didn't receive any answer.

I did it several years ago and they never answered me either.

If some of the readers of this thread can copy and paste the questions of my first posting and send them to NASA for their answers, your help will be greatly appreciated.

If no answer is given, I guess is because something is going wrong and silence is a very bad signal.

If answers are received but no experimental demostration is showed, the same, such is an indication that somethging is really going wrong.

How NASA and other several institutions fell in such trap of believing in Relativity without questioning its base foundation is unkonwn, but we must do something to vindicate science.

I love Relativity because is a good entertainment for our imaginations, but we cannot lean in these imaginations to explain reality with magical events which don't exist as a physical dilatation of time or its pulling by dense bodies.

Please, lets review this theory in each of its known predictions, and the best way to review it is by using other explanations to compare. The mathematical data is not worthy in several caees because by playing with numbers you can even prove the xistence of a god -some decades ago a mathematician claimed that his numbers proved it).

The best scientific comparison -to determine which explanation is more accurate- is obtained when you review the mechanisms which caused the phenomena in question.

I guess you might disagree with this last sentence.

17. Conquer, NASA won't reply to you.

If you want to contact NASA in any professional manner, you need to represent your own organisation, like BOEING, and lodge a tender usually for a military contract. You have to submit a paper outlining the proposed research in a way that meets their standards of review and interest.

If you send a paper, they will think you are a kid or something worse.

The only miracle of contact with them in sending them a simple letter would be like in some type of StarGate scenario.

You need to have working proof of some type of new application. They're not interested in theories. They are interested in hiring people who can construct something for their Government-funded agendas.

If you have a new theory, you need to demonstrate it in a way that streams with contemporary models of physics (you need a degree).

My situation is a little different, because I come from a medical background, doing research into mathematical models of perception, which then suggested our perception works better according to the appraisal and use of two extra dimensions of time, time before (like a memory) and time after (our thoughts of the future), and how those two dimensions of time are linked in a circular fashion <which makes sense, when you think how round our head/perception is to the rest of our body, and how our head/mind constantly jumps from memories to future ideas>. You see, no University teaches those extra dimensions of time, and thus a degree would be wasteful, for me. You present an idea that challenges the fundamental axioms of time, like I do, but like I, you also need proof. And then when you get the proof you have to submit that proof as a "relevant" concept to industrial development. Then NASA may listen to you

In terms of the Universe returning to a previous pattern, I am suggesting that in however many thousands o years time, tens of thousands, it is possible that in a steady state Universe, in an oscillating steady state Universe, the pattern of the stars will return to a former position. No one has proved the Universe ISN'T steady state. The "expanding universe" theory has only credibility in trying to explain the red-shift effect, yet the red-shift effect can be better explained (theory associated to www feature below, p236 onwards (the quantum precedent)) by how this 3-dimension we exist in is tugged into ANOTHER dimension of time (as the theory highlights).

I don't think this forum is the place to air new theories, either. I think the aim is if you have a new theory to maybe see how interactive it can be "relevant" to contemporary fields of research and associated expected research results. For instance, if the internet existed 100 years ago, and I posted my theory that raised the possibility of subatomic particles, explanations of relativity and quatum physics, I would be ahead of Einstein (and this theory could have been done 100 years ago: it was constructed from the pure logic of the mind, not research into atomic phenomena. The only thing this theory needed was computer technology to have the theory reviewed and re-reviewed, documented, and so on. Einstein would have been keenly interested in any theory that presents with end-equations similar to his own. The problem my theory presents with, even though it proposes EVERYTHING modern science presents with, is a new form of energy and access and use based on what I term "unfolded" space-time. You see, contemporary science isn't looking for this UNFOLDED theory, and nor will they stumble across it without a theory like this. The theory is entirely UNIQUE to the UNFOLDED concept of space-time. Basically, if I built a craft that used this theory, that craft would be impossible to understand through back-engineerig and contemporary scientific theory, IMPOSSIBLE. You really need a theory that doesn't challenge well-known scientific facts. My theory doesn't, it only proposes research ventures not thought of. My theory explains the SAME observable facts and associated forces in a DIFFERENT WAY, but that doesn't make it wrong, because it doesn't challenge the same observable facts and associated forces. I am currently working on a "working application" of my theory).

Conquer, most theories that are not born from a University education lack depth, they make claims that challenge what science already knows through repeated experiments, and propose no productive models of proof.

Now, to show you the difficulty my theory faces, it was born from a classically schooled tertiary medical education, it makes claims that doesn't challenge the contemporary understanding of physics (it only adds two extra dimensions of time which ISN'T a challenge, just an annexation), it arrives at ALL thoroughly researched known laws of atomic and subatomic physics, it arrives at ALL known accepted equations of geometry (including pi) and motion (force), including Einsteins energy-mass equation, YET (and please hear me here) YET no one of the scientific establishment will consider it because it does one perceived damaging thing, namely that the addition to the axiom of time is perceived as a challenge, and because of that it is discarded. MY WAY THROUGH THAT THOUGH IS TO OFFER A SIMPLE YET EFFECTIVE EXPERIMENT CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS CANOT EXPLAIN WITH THEIR OWN MODELS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY.

Trust me, I've seen it all in terms of stubborn and rigid refusal not to consider anything from anyone without a title and 50 years of research behind them. Don't worry about NASA.

I myself had one year and two 5th year subjects only to complete before being awarded a degree in Medicine and Surgery, yet I coldn't complete that year owing to the mounting difficulty I had with beig colorblind (completely red-green) and the potantial litigation I faced in doing something "wrong" by a pateint in a clinical setting, such as not being able to pick a sore throat (red), a bruise (red), an infection, or interpret a stained slide (red staining). But, even then no one regards one as educated unless they have a piece of paper (like Scarecrow in the land of Oz). You will find it very difficult to be accepted for anything in science WITHOUT a degree, no matter how intelligent you are. I myself have decided not to return to University owing to the uniqueness of the theory, and the shorter time it will take to prove the theory with a simple experiment.

18. Originally Posted by streamSystems
YET no one of the scientific establishment will consider it because it does one perceived damaging thing, namely that the addition to the axiom of time is perceived as a challenge, and because of that it is discarded.
I am not part of the scientific establishment.
I have rejected it because it is poorly expressed, ill defined, badly structured, lacking in cohesion, absent meaningful maths, and devoid of properly defined terms.
If you wish to delude yourself that it is something special, which challenges modern scientists, though not modern science, then go ahead. But don't expect me not to take potshots at what I consider to be misguided intellectual flatulence.

19. .

It was advised to me by various sources to release, as an initial release, the "a-b-c" version, and then via feedback bring into effect the more complicated version.

Failing that, just offer the hyperspace research proof (which I am close to considering).

You see, Ophiliote, the more complicated structured version you seek is a calculus you haven't seen. It is a 3-d time calculus. The theory on offer, as page 1 highlights, goes: "This presentation is not in the contemporary scientific format, owing to it's uniqueness". If you want a more constructed, more difficult to understand, more "where did that come from given it is not taught at University" version, "why".

.

20. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by streamSystems
YET no one of the scientific establishment will consider it because it does one perceived damaging thing, namely that the addition to the axiom of time is perceived as a challenge, and because of that it is discarded.
I am not part of the scientific establishment.
I have rejected it because it is poorly expressed, ill defined, badly structured, lacking in cohesion, absent meaningful maths, and devoid of properly defined terms.
If you wish to delude yourself that it is something special, which challenges modern scientists, though not modern science, then go ahead. But don't expect me not to take potshots at what I consider to be misguided intellectual flatulence.

Ophiolite, it seems to me you have a masters in languages, and that's about it, maybe the history of "english"?

21. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Ophiolite, it seems to me you have a masters in languages, and that's about it, maybe the history of "english"?
What a strange response from one who decries the value of any form of degree.
I understand that is must be uncomfortable for you to have your meisterwerk dismissed in such summary terms; especially by someone who has actually taken the trouble to read much of it.
Making an emotional reaction by condemning me for my honesty and perception will not makes the facts go away. Even if the vanishingly small possibility that there is any value in your theory was true, your singular inability to express it with any clarity, or conviction, means that it will not gain currency.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays duck eggs, and has duck DNA, it probably isn't a giant sequoia.

That's where yor passion lies.

23. Originally Posted by streamSystems

That's where yor passion lies.
Rubbish. I merely believe that if I am unable to convey my ideas in a clear, concise fashion, then I do not understand them. Clarity in communication is vital to understanding, and indirectly to progress (however you may wish to define the latter.)

24. wow.

let me know how everything goes.

25. I DO THOUGH LUUUUUUVRE "JONHNNY WALKER".

(as you can tell)

26. Its good, but why oh why does my head hurt?

27. Because you are just a petal.....

28. Will you be a honey bee to my petal??

29. I will be the venus to your flying antics,=,=.

30. But I want sweet stuff! :P

31. Know thyself.

And then relate to someone likewise.

32. But I like sucky wucky mmmm

33. Ok.

Hesitate.
And Listen.

Ice is back with a brand new intvention......

34. I like older and posh , Yeah!!

35. I like Rod Stewart's saturday stuff.

37. Do you Know my husband?

38. Yeah hes my best friend but i cant stop myself.

39. Pity you guys don/t get along.

40. We do! but he doesnt know.

41. W0w,]]

I'm married to an autistic person, right?

42. I dont know. His about 45 and 6"5' and drives a CAT, yeah?

43. well, before this thread turns into a saturday night soap drama,
i just wish to say the train analogy in the first post is wrong.

Well, we know by fact that a man sitting in a train wagon traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail will also be traveling at 60 miles per hour, if this man walks forward or backwards inside the wagon he still traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail.
yes, a man sitting in a train wagon traveling at 60mph will in reference to the train rail be travelling at 60mph.
however, a man walking forward inside the train at 1mph will be traveling at 61mph
in reference to the train rail, but in reference to the train,
he will be traveling at 1mph.
a man walking backwards in the train at 1mph, will be traveling at 59mph in reference to the train rail, but still travel at 1mph in reference to the train.

in closing, i just want to say: a paradox in relativity isn't. say that 3 times fast in a row, and you'll understand..

44. Is it Einstein that did the mind experiment with the trains, but with opening mechanisms on the front and back doors of the car triggered by a light pulse being sent simultaniously to both from the centre of the
train-car? It really illustrated the relativity theory better than anything else, to me at least.

45. keep in mind that moving around in a train moving at near the speed of light isn't anything like moving around in a train traveling at 60mph.

the train at lightspeed moving along a railroad of incredible length,
would be an infinitely flat pancake version of itself, while from the reference frame of the train, the railroad would be of infinite length.

therefore, moving in something near the speed of light won't move you past the speed of light, because you're actually moving infinitely slowly inside the infinitely flat train frame of reference.

46. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Is it Einstein that did the mind experiment with the trains, but with opening mechanisms on the front and back doors of the car triggered by a light pulse being sent simultaniously to both from the centre of the
train-car? It really illustrated the relativity theory better than anything else, to me at least.

That's great. But is there proof. All those highginks aside, do those analysis of Einstein regarding relativity, do they stack up with experimental evidence, and if so where are those equations of proof, and if not, what equations are being sought for that behavior of light in relativity situations.

47. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Conquer, NASA won't reply to you.

If you want to contact NASA in any professional manner, you need to represent your own organisation, like BOEING, and lodge a tender usually for a military contract. You have to submit a paper outlining the proposed research in a way that meets their standards of review and interest.

If you send a paper, they will think you are a kid or something worse.

The only miracle of contact with them in sending them a simple letter would be like in some type of StarGate scenario.
NASA has a department which work is to answer questions from everybody.

You can ask them about why sound is not heard in outer space or about the Inca City in Mars. You can even ask them about UFo's...and you will receive and answer from them. This is why this department of Q&A was made. Specialists will responfd your questions regardless of how scientific or ridiculous the questions are.

When I sent the questions about the physical existence of time, only silence was the answer.

You need to have working proof of some type of new application. They're not interested in theories. They are interested in hiring people who can construct something for their Government-funded agendas.
Oh, I will apply for a new job in NASA: Science based strictly in Reality.

With this new department all the deluded imaginations found in the so called current theories of "science" should be automatically discarded. This will create a clean up transition which consequences will be the great vindication of science as a "serious" branch of knowledge, because right now with Relativity and similar theories the topic of Physics is practically a circus.

If you have a new theory, you need to demonstrate it in a way that streams with contemporary models of physics (you need a degree).
You remind me the young amateir astronomer who observed that VEnus' rotation was as slow as what it takes for our planet Earth to orbit around the Sun. Carl Sagan made mockeries about this amateur but further observations gave the rason to this young fellow and Carl Sagan was the one found in ridiculous.

Do you need a degree to prove that time doesn't exist physically? Lol. Of course no.

My situation is a little different, because I come from a medical background, doing research into mathematical models of perception, which then suggested our perception works better according to the appraisal and use of two extra dimensions of time, time before (like a memory) and time after (our thoughts of the future), and how those two dimensions of time are linked in a circular fashion <which makes sense, when you think how round our head/perception is to the rest of our body, and how our head/mind constantly jumps from memories to future ideas>. You see, no University teaches those extra dimensions of time, and thus a degree would be wasteful, for me. You present an idea that challenges the fundamental axioms of time, like I do, but like I, you also need proof. And then when you get the proof you have to submit that proof as a "relevant" concept to industrial development. Then NASA may listen to you
You ignore one fact: in Psychology several tests and experiments were made in order to find out how do we perceive time.

What were the results?: THe subjective perception of time was directly related to our health, our environment, our emotional status, and more.

Lets say, you isolate a person without light and sound around for two or more days and this person will lose the orientation of time. You get sick and time will appear to "pass slower". You are happy in a party and time appears "to pass faster".

So, the objective perception of time was never ever proved as detected by our senses, but what we are taught about time was perceived in accord to our health,, emotions and more.

You can add as much mathematics you want, those numbers are no more than abstract mathematics because time cannot be perceived at all by our senses but what we "think" we pereceive is no more than illusions.

These illusions about time are created in your brains because since you were a child you were taught that time flows.

Lets use a similar common illusion: The Sun "sets" at evenings or "rises" at mornings.

We know by fact that the Sun never ever "sets or rises" but our location on Earth provides the illusion that the Sun orbits around Earth by the effects of distance. As we face or go away from the Sun by the Earth's rotation, we perceive that the Sun sets and rises everyday. Even the weather-man mention this words "set and rise" in his predictions of the weather.

What is he common language in everybody regardless of the knowledge that the Sun never sets or rises?: Lol, the opposite, people uses the words "set and rise" as a common expression anyway.

I strongly will suggest to start teaching our children in schools and homes new expressions like:

1)- We are facing the Sun directly instead of the expression "the Sun is right above us".

2)- When we start to face the Sun instead of the expression "when the Sun rises".

3)- When we are (our location is) going away from the Sun instead of the expression "when the Sun is setting".

With this new educational structure the future genberations will enjoy the benefits of science greatly by applying it in each moment of their lives.

The same illusion happens with time. And I will tell you more, I am practically an expert in Sensation and Perception, I have reviewed lots of tests and theories about perception and I can tell you with great certainty that time doesn't exists physically and that there is not a single device capable to perceive the "assumed" flowing of time.

The silence of NASA is the best evidence to prove themselves that they have fell in a silly illusion by accepting Relativity and other theories as "science".

It is not to late to start the repairs, the first step is the recognition that Relativity and other theories which are based in the assumed flowing of time are false. Simple as that.

Some guys will lose their jobs but our future generations will indeed have a great benefit by taking out these fantasies made about time from science.

48. Originally Posted by streamSystems
In terms of the Universe returning to a previous pattern, I am suggesting that in however many thousands o years time, tens of thousands, it is possible that in a steady state Universe, in an oscillating steady state Universe, the pattern of the stars will return to a former position. No one has proved the Universe ISN'T steady state. The "expanding universe" theory has only credibility in trying to explain the red-shift effect, yet the red-shift effect can be better explained (theory associated to www feature below, p236 onwards (the quantum precedent)) by how this 3-dimension we exist in is tugged into ANOTHER dimension of time (as the theory highlights).
I have questions for you: Why do you add more dimensions watering plants if you cannot even prove time as physically existent in the first place?

If the Universe return to a former position, what is the big deal? You return back home from work and seat in the same chair to watch the same DVD movie everyday at the same hour. Does that mean something special beyond a returning to the same "position"?

I don't think this forum is the place to air new theories, either. I think the aim is if you have a new theory to maybe see how interactive it can be "relevant" to contemporary fields of research and associated expected research results. For instance, if the internet existed 100 years ago, and I posted my theory that raised the possibility of subatomic particles, explanations of relativity and quatum physics, I would be ahead of Einstein (and this theory could have been done 100 years ago: it was constructed from the pure logic of the mind, not research into atomic phenomena. The only thing this theory needed was computer technology to have the theory reviewed and re-reviewed, documented, and so on. Einstein would have been keenly interested in any theory that presents with end-equations similar to his own. The problem my theory presents with, even though it proposes EVERYTHING modern science presents with, is a new form of energy and access and use based on what I term "unfolded" space-time. You see, contemporary science isn't looking for this UNFOLDED theory, and nor will they stumble across it without a theory like this. The theory is entirely UNIQUE to the UNFOLDED concept of space-time. Basically, if I built a craft that used this theory, that craft would be impossible to understand through back-engineerig and contemporary scientific theory, IMPOSSIBLE. You really need a theory that doesn't challenge well-known scientific facts. My theory doesn't, it only proposes research ventures not thought of. My theory explains the SAME observable facts and associated forces in a DIFFERENT WAY, but that doesn't make it wrong, because it doesn't challenge the same observable facts and associated forces. I am currently working on a "working application" of my theory).
Sorry to understand that your words are a demonstration that their author doesn't want to accept facts.

You talk about "well-known scientific facts". Great! Show me here the tests and experiments made solely to prove the fact that time exists physically and that flows.

Conquer, most theories that are not born from a University education lack depth, they make claims that challenge what science already knows through repeated experiments, and propose no productive models of proof.
I have my tests, they are very simple tests but are valiod enough to prove that clocks are not devices which can measure a physical passage of time but clocks are devices which functional work has been calibrated to make tic tic tic only.

With clocks my elementary school child made experiments to check "which environment causes stronger variations in the data pf clocks", the science project was named as "Can clocks detect a passage of time"? Or something similar, this was masde several years ago. Well, By installing clocks in different environments, the clocks provided different variations in their data.

The variations have an amazing "standard rate", like to day, the clock installed in the freezer compartment of the refrigerator slower its data at a rate of 6 seconds per day. The same variations are observed by micro-seconds at standard rates in atomic clocks installed in satellites and exposed to a different environment to the one where they were calibrated.

So, clocks cannot measure any physical passage ot time, and clocks indeed suffer of malfunction when are exposed to different environments other that the one where they were manufactured.

What about Einstein? Lol, you can read his papers and find out that he fell in the illusion that clocks mesured a physical passage of time. Such were the conventional ideas inherited from milleniums, but, today we must enforce reaslity over fantasies and Einstein's ideas must be reviewed in base of reality instead of being reviewed in base of the doctrines of his theories.

Now, to show you the difficulty my theory faces, it was born from a classically schooled tertiary medical education, it makes claims that doesn't challenge the contemporary understanding of physics (it only adds two extra dimensions of time which ISN'T a challenge, just an annexation), it arrives at ALL thoroughly researched known laws of atomic and subatomic physics, it arrives at ALL known accepted equations of geometry (including pi) and motion (force), including Einsteins energy-mass equation, YET (and please hear me here) YET no one of the scientific establishment will consider it because it does one perceived damaging thing, namely that the addition to the axiom of time is perceived as a challenge, and because of that it is discarded. MY WAY THROUGH THAT THOUGH IS TO OFFER A SIMPLE YET EFFECTIVE EXPERIMENT CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS CANOT EXPLAIN WITH THEIR OWN MODELS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY.
Again, you are adding more dimensions to an idea, such is not science, your ideas belong to philosophy.

Before adding physical dimensions as requested by Physics, you must prove at least the physical existence of time. How long it will take for you to understand this essential step?

Trust me, I've seen it all in terms of stubborn and rigid refusal not to consider anything from anyone without a title and 50 years of research behind them. Don't worry about NASA.
I don't worry about NASA, I encourage others to write them the same questions so they must realize that they are teaching crap to the people by accepting Relativity and similar pseudo-science as scientific approaches.

Please go to the NASA site. Look for the link to questions and answers, it will take you to an e-mail address where you can write the questions that I made in the first posting of this thread. Wait for their answer. They must answer the questions because such is what they promise.

I think that this is fair, maybe they don't like me but they might like you and they may answer to you.

I myself had one year and two 5th year subjects only to complete before being awarded a degree in Medicine and Surgery, yet I coldn't complete that year owing to the mounting difficulty I had with beig colorblind (completely red-green) and the potantial litigation I faced in doing something "wrong" by a pateint in a clinical setting, such as not being able to pick a sore throat (red), a bruise (red), an infection, or interpret a stained slide (red staining). But, even then no one regards one as educated unless they have a piece of paper (like Scarecrow in the land of Oz). You will find it very difficult to be accepted for anything in science WITHOUT a degree, no matter how intelligent you are. I myself have decided not to return to University owing to the uniqueness of the theory, and the shorter time it will take to prove the theory with a simple experiment.
You are incorrect about it. A young physicists with the required degrees presented his paper to a journal demonstrating that time is no more than a concept, a measure, a parameter. The "scientific inquisition" refused to review his papers. He has strong support by known mathematicians but still his paper practically destroys the conventional ideas about time and it is not accepted even for a review.

49. Originally Posted by dejawolf
well, before this thread turns into a saturday night soap drama,
i just wish to say the train analogy in the first post is wrong.

Well, we know by fact that a man sitting in a train wagon traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail will also be traveling at 60 miles per hour, if this man walks forward or backwards inside the wagon he still traveling at 60 miles per hour in reference to the train rail.
yes, a man sitting in a train wagon traveling at 60mph will in reference to the train rail be travelling at 60mph.
however, a man walking forward inside the train at 1mph will be traveling at 61mph
in reference to the train rail, but in reference to the train,
he will be traveling at 1mph.
a man walking backwards in the train at 1mph, will be traveling at 59mph in reference to the train rail, but still travel at 1mph in reference to the train.

in closing, i just want to say: a paradox in relativity isn't. say that 3 times fast in a row, and you'll understand..
Such is in paper. In reality the man walking forward or backwards will still traveling at 60mph in reference to the train rail. The train wagon is not long enough and has a limit. Lets use a flashlight, Put yourself inside the train wagon. Turn on the light against the opposite side. What is the speed of the light inside the wagon as part of the moving wagon? Simple: 60mph.

Why? because the light still travel inside the wagon and dies in it. For you who are inside the wagon the light travels very fast at miles per second, but for the train rail, everything inside the wagon travels "with the wagon" and the wagon travels only at 60mph.

This is the realistic perception. Your point shows the "imaginary perception" based in numbers not so in what you perceive in reality.

Another example, Einstein announces that a clock inside a train will appear to run slower than a clock hung in the train station wall.

Well, please do the following: stand still close to the train rail and wait for the fast train to pass by. You will notivce that you won;'t be able to "see" any motion in a clock inside the train.

So, the ideas of Einstein were based in imaginary events that when the events are put in realistic observations such analogies and examples of Einstein fail miserably.

You have more examples as the "light clock" made with mirrors, such machine was never made because it was an invention for entertainment but in reality such clock won't work.

This is why the ideas of Relativity are sentenced to fail: the author of them had great imaginations but a poor understanding about reality.

50. Why is this thread still here and not where it belongs, pseudoscience? You think anything useful is going to exit from Battle of the Kooks? :?

51. Originally Posted by Lucifer
Why is this thread still here and not where it belongs, pseudoscience? You think anything useful is going to exit from Battle of the Kooks? :?
It's called "Reviewing Relativity" why should it be in the "Pseuduscience" forum?

52. Originally Posted by conquer
Originally Posted by streamSystems
In terms of the Universe returning to a previous pattern, I am suggesting that in however many thousands o years time, tens of thousands, it is possible that in a steady state Universe, in an oscillating steady state Universe, the pattern of the stars will return to a former position. No one has proved the Universe ISN'T steady state. The "expanding universe" theory has only credibility in trying to explain the red-shift effect, yet the red-shift effect can be better explained (theory associated to www feature below, p236 onwards (the quantum precedent)) by how this 3-dimension we exist in is tugged into ANOTHER dimension of time (as the theory highlights).
I have questions for you: Why do you add more dimensions watering plants if you cannot even prove time as physically existent in the first place?

If the Universe return to a former position, what is the big deal? You return back home from work and seat in the same chair to watch the same DVD movie everyday at the same hour. Does that mean something special beyond a returning to the same "position"?

I don't think this forum is the place to air new theories, either. I think the aim is if you have a new theory to maybe see how interactive it can be "relevant" to contemporary fields of research and associated expected research results. For instance, if the internet existed 100 years ago, and I posted my theory that raised the possibility of subatomic particles, explanations of relativity and quatum physics, I would be ahead of Einstein (and this theory could have been done 100 years ago: it was constructed from the pure logic of the mind, not research into atomic phenomena. The only thing this theory needed was computer technology to have the theory reviewed and re-reviewed, documented, and so on. Einstein would have been keenly interested in any theory that presents with end-equations similar to his own. The problem my theory presents with, even though it proposes EVERYTHING modern science presents with, is a new form of energy and access and use based on what I term "unfolded" space-time. You see, contemporary science isn't looking for this UNFOLDED theory, and nor will they stumble across it without a theory like this. The theory is entirely UNIQUE to the UNFOLDED concept of space-time. Basically, if I built a craft that used this theory, that craft would be impossible to understand through back-engineerig and contemporary scientific theory, IMPOSSIBLE. You really need a theory that doesn't challenge well-known scientific facts. My theory doesn't, it only proposes research ventures not thought of. My theory explains the SAME observable facts and associated forces in a DIFFERENT WAY, but that doesn't make it wrong, because it doesn't challenge the same observable facts and associated forces. I am currently working on a "working application" of my theory).
Sorry to understand that your words are a demonstration that their author doesn't want to accept facts.

You talk about "well-known scientific facts". Great! Show me here the tests and experiments made solely to prove the fact that time exists physically and that flows.

Conquer, most theories that are not born from a University education lack depth, they make claims that challenge what science already knows through repeated experiments, and propose no productive models of proof.
I have my tests, they are very simple tests but are valiod enough to prove that clocks are not devices which can measure a physical passage of time but clocks are devices which functional work has been calibrated to make tic tic tic only.

With clocks my elementary school child made experiments to check "which environment causes stronger variations in the data pf clocks", the science project was named as "Can clocks detect a passage of time"? Or something similar, this was masde several years ago. Well, By installing clocks in different environments, the clocks provided different variations in their data.

The variations have an amazing "standard rate", like to day, the clock installed in the freezer compartment of the refrigerator slower its data at a rate of 6 seconds per day. The same variations are observed by micro-seconds at standard rates in atomic clocks installed in satellites and exposed to a different environment to the one where they were calibrated.

So, clocks cannot measure any physical passage ot time, and clocks indeed suffer of malfunction when are exposed to different environments other that the one where they were manufactured.

What about Einstein? Lol, you can read his papers and find out that he fell in the illusion that clocks mesured a physical passage of time. Such were the conventional ideas inherited from milleniums, but, today we must enforce reaslity over fantasies and Einstein's ideas must be reviewed in base of reality instead of being reviewed in base of the doctrines of his theories.

Now, to show you the difficulty my theory faces, it was born from a classically schooled tertiary medical education, it makes claims that doesn't challenge the contemporary understanding of physics (it only adds two extra dimensions of time which ISN'T a challenge, just an annexation), it arrives at ALL thoroughly researched known laws of atomic and subatomic physics, it arrives at ALL known accepted equations of geometry (including pi) and motion (force), including Einsteins energy-mass equation, YET (and please hear me here) YET no one of the scientific establishment will consider it because it does one perceived damaging thing, namely that the addition to the axiom of time is perceived as a challenge, and because of that it is discarded. MY WAY THROUGH THAT THOUGH IS TO OFFER A SIMPLE YET EFFECTIVE EXPERIMENT CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS CANOT EXPLAIN WITH THEIR OWN MODELS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY.
Again, you are adding more dimensions to an idea, such is not science, your ideas belong to philosophy.

Before adding physical dimensions as requested by Physics, you must prove at least the physical existence of time. How long it will take for you to understand this essential step?

Trust me, I've seen it all in terms of stubborn and rigid refusal not to consider anything from anyone without a title and 50 years of research behind them. Don't worry about NASA.
I don't worry about NASA, I encourage others to write them the same questions so they must realize that they are teaching crap to the people by accepting Relativity and similar pseudo-science as scientific approaches.

Please go to the NASA site. Look for the link to questions and answers, it will take you to an e-mail address where you can write the questions that I made in the first posting of this thread. Wait for their answer. They must answer the questions because such is what they promise.

I think that this is fair, maybe they don't like me but they might like you and they may answer to you.

I myself had one year and two 5th year subjects only to complete before being awarded a degree in Medicine and Surgery, yet I coldn't complete that year owing to the mounting difficulty I had with beig colorblind (completely red-green) and the potantial litigation I faced in doing something "wrong" by a pateint in a clinical setting, such as not being able to pick a sore throat (red), a bruise (red), an infection, or interpret a stained slide (red staining). But, even then no one regards one as educated unless they have a piece of paper (like Scarecrow in the land of Oz). You will find it very difficult to be accepted for anything in science WITHOUT a degree, no matter how intelligent you are. I myself have decided not to return to University owing to the uniqueness of the theory, and the shorter time it will take to prove the theory with a simple experiment.
You are incorrect about it. A young physicists with the required degrees presented his paper to a journal demonstrating that time is no more than a concept, a measure, a parameter. The "scientific inquisition" refused to review his papers. He has strong support by known mathematicians but still his paper practically destroys the conventional ideas about time and it is not accepted even for a review.

Conquer, take it easy. Don't let NASA get you in spin. Someone will believe you one day, like someone will believe me one day, and then we can all live in our own private bubble realities, lights on or off, as you suggested.

Conquer, don't lose sight of the big picture. The big picture is that theory doesn't change reality. If you have a theory for space-time, it won't change space-time in the slightest. If you have a theory for space-time, the BEST you can do for humanity is create structures MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED to space-time than not, more compatible. Never forget that, because people won't, namely an ecofriendly science and technology that comes as a result of a better understanding of how to recreate space-time in a research environment. Now, if your theory proposes a new form of energy access and use, I am sure the sensible minded people in the land of science will pay attention, as they would pay attention to my own claim in that regard.

So, best of luck, but don't forget the bigger picture (theory won't change space-time).

Finally, for the record, there is no physical existence of time. My theory states time is entirely hypothetical to a system continually seeking a type of balance between order and chaos. Time exists, sure, like mathematics is purely hypothetical, just like our MIND is purely hypothetical (ie, you can't see your mind, it's a concept, like mathematics). I've said this before in this forum, time is like the caduecues, the two snakes, both false, time before and time after, entwined around the continual sword of now. If you can find the technology for that description of time, you could be offering the caduceus. People might actually rightly call you a Doctor. If you try to convince people time does not exist, people will think you have lost your own time, your own mind. Time is a measurement tool, like mathematics. It is real, like mathematics. It is real, because it is that closely related to a real thing, space, it commands respect. Your quest, if you choose to accept it, is to find the real mathematics of time and associate that mathematics, that algorithm, to space. Then you might be able to help humanity better construct technology more aligned to the ecosystem.

If this has anything to do with relativeity, as I am sure it does, why not make it easy on yourself, the theory of time, and establish the relativity between two different space-time paradigms, before and after, and establish if there exists a type of geometry between those two space paradigms of time suggestive that space-time is curved in this continual "now" zone it seems we are "aware", as we are, in.

Could you maybe also provide me the link you have been trying to contact NASA with and I will see what I can do.

53. Originally Posted by Obviously
Originally Posted by Lucifer
Why is this thread still here and not where it belongs, pseudoscience? You think anything useful is going to exit from Battle of the Kooks? :?
It's called "Reviewing Relativity" why should it be in the "Pseuduscience" forum?
Maybe becasue it has nothing to do with the theory of relativity, has devoted a whole page (3) to nonsense and it's about the uninteresting discussion between two grade A kooks and their different unscientific babble?

Maybe, just maybe, because it is not about science but about pseudoscience?

54. Yes.

And we are waiting for the sound your ruby slippers.....

(cue someone else)

55. Originally Posted by conquer
Such is in paper. In reality the man walking forward or backwards will still traveling at 60mph in reference to the train rail. The train wagon is not long enough and has a limit. Lets use a flashlight, Put yourself inside the train wagon. Turn on the light against the opposite side. What is the speed of the light inside the wagon as part of the moving wagon? Simple: 60mph.

Why? because the light still travel inside the wagon and dies in it. For you who are inside the wagon the light travels very fast at miles per second, but for the train rail, everything inside the wagon travels "with the wagon" and the wagon travels only at 60mph.

This is the realistic perception. Your point shows the "imaginary perception" based in numbers not so in what you perceive in reality.
did you sell your brain for a porn subscription?

lets do the math.
the train travels at 60mph.
the man inside the train travels at 1mph, along the same vector as the train.
60+1 = 61.
if he travels at 1mph backwards in the train, the calculation is
60-1=59.

its conservation of momentum.
the most basic of basic physical principles.
its the stuff galileo galilei found out.
the train accelerates the man to 60mph. then the man accelerates himself to 61mph when walking inside the train.
conservation of momentum is OBSERVABLE.
its one of newtons most basic formulas at work.
the lorentz contraction is so small, that its negligible in the case of a train traveling at 60mph.
it only starts rearing its ugly head at 1/10 of the speed of light.

einstein used this equation when formulating his famous E=MC squared,
he slightly modified it so that light would remain constant at all speeds,
because at the time, light was creating anomalies in the scientists experiments (namely the Michelson-Morley experiment), and didn't match up with the tried and true equations of the day, maxwell, newton, etc.
heres a picture:

in the middle, you have the half-silvered mirror. it splits the light beam into 2, sending it in 2 separate directions.
the first experiments were done with the mirrors equally spaced from eachother, to measure the "wind" from the aether.
(the mass light was theorized to propagate through, like a soundwave)
on later experiments,
one mirror was further from the half-silvered mirror than the other.
to test the theory of relativity.
if there was an aether, the light beam would hit the detector at different times.
if relativity was right, the light beams would hit the detector simultaneously.
and it hit simultaneously.
this experiment wasn't done once. it was done several times up through a time period of over 70 years, by several different people.
and each one of the experiments were well within parameters for relativity.
as accuracy increased, it became more and more obvious that the aether theory was a dead horse.

56. or, lets just do it simple.

you are in a train moving at 60mph.
you aim for the back of the head of an old lady sitting in front of you,
and throw a ball.

now. whats going to happend?
if the relative motion of the ball is the same as the train, e.g 60mph
compared to the rail, the ball should drop down out of your hand, and not hit the nice old lady.
to hit the lady, the ball needs to travel at a higher or lower velocity than the train, depending on what way you throw it.

now, if you do this on a real train, you WILL hit the lady.
or if you're a terrible thrower, the ball will fly past the lady, and hit a wall or a seat.
same shit happends on a plane. or in a car.
or anywhere else where air friction doesnt matter.

57. Why don't you guys break that 60mph train up into before and after time zones, use the speed of light as a constant, and then establish that space-time is curved with that common thread of light in those two different before and after time zones depicting the different speeds of the trains.

It's a LOOOOOOoooooooot easier to understand that way.

You see, light is a constant, right?

Two trains moving at different speeds, when to the observor light emitted from each train should be, to the observor, at a constant speed.

I am arguing that there would have to exist a slight curvature of space in that situation so light can be perceived as a constant from a common observor reference, and in the case of two trains approaching a person at different speeds, I would think there is a curvature of space-time such that it produces a type of doppler effect without any change in the actual speed of light itsef. We do all agree that the stars have that effect, right? Redshift?

Basically, for the speed of light to be relevant as an observable difference in such an experiment, you would have to be moving SO FAST you would pick up what a curvature of space really is.......you will find the track, whether it be the coiling of the fabric of light itself, or the actual massive curvature of space.

Einstein really got himself in a jam with the way he employed mathematics to explain the concept of relativity.

PEOPLE.

I am arguing that reality, that SPACE-TIME, is shaped in the way it is, curved, like lets get planetary now, SHAPED in the way it is, spherical, to accommodate for these trains going all over the place with people and their flash-lights (aka relativity inquisitions of light).

Think about it: is it possible space-time is curved to ensure light is observed as a constant?

If so, WOOOOOwwwwww.

Let's invesitgate that using our percetion, a common perception REFERENCE of space-time, and do the MATH for once.

(see WWW feature below).

You see, people, I have developed a mathematics DESIGNED for the "common observor", in TAKING IT FOR GRANTED (picture Dr Evil), in TAKING IT FOR GRANTED, that the speed of light is a CONSTANT anywhere in the system of space-time.

I've done the math relevant to that thought process.

people, think about it. If light is a contant (and I have written a book for all of you to read before bedtime), if light is a contant, then do the mathematics of that space-time reality where light is a constant. Switch the light on in your own brain and do a theory of a "constant observor reference"...........like I did.

I've written an A-B-C version of that new calculus for all of you to one day find your way through this forest.

Just tap on that www feature below and go straight to the top of your class.

As simply as it is written, it's not easy though. It uses a theory of perception, something only someone with the cred of studying medicine should present. You see, when you study medicine, it becomes IMPRINTED in your very psyche what a "nerve" is, what "a sensory-motor neural network" is, such that, after deep thought on neural networks, you begin to see the code of that neural matrix.........you begin to see the math, the light.

And then you ask, "what if that light, that math of perception, were constant, was everywhere constantly". Then, you hope for a deity like me to come and offer you that theory.

You see, when you employ a mathematics, however difficult it may be, as this forum demonstrates, a mathematics that doesn't take it for granted that the speed of light is a constant, you're making your work that much harder for yourselves. Think of how incredible your mind is, how superior as a computational system to any form of computation. Then ask yourself the question, "does my incredible mind have an algorithm I can use to make computing things, like space-time, easier for me".

Go on.

58. Originally Posted by Lucifer
Why is this thread still here and not where it belongs, pseudoscience? You think anything useful is going to exit from Battle of the Kooks? :?
Mainly because I access posts via the New Posts function, not via the specific forums. Consequently I don't generally notice where a thread is located. When someone points out an inappropriate location I change it.
Too many kooks spoil the thread?

59. Originally Posted by streamSystems

Conquer, take it easy. Don't let NASA get you in spin. Someone will believe you one day, like someone will believe me one day, and then we can all live in our own private bubble realities, lights on or off, as you suggested.
At this moment the situation is not resolved by "beliefs" but by facts.

Look, Relativity is the greatest error or the greatets fraud ever made in science. The fact is that time doesn't exist physically, and no one can take seriously the idea that the concept of time will "dilate" by the speeds of objects...come on.

Conquer, don't lose sight of the big picture. The big picture is that theory doesn't change reality. If you have a theory for space-time, it won't change space-time in the slightest. If you have a theory for space-time, the BEST you can do for humanity is create structures MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED to space-time than not, more compatible. Never forget that, because people won't, namely an ecofriendly science and technology that comes as a result of a better understanding of how to recreate space-time in a research environment. Now, if your theory proposes a new form of energy access and use, I am sure the sensible minded people in the land of science will pay attention, as they would pay attention to my own claim in that regard.
Unfortunately several fantasies are taught right now in schools and univerasities as if they were science.

This is the real problem.

I really won't care if Hawking with his deluded imaginations lives his life full of fantasies, but I do care if the school board of education accepts his imaginations as science.

Our future generations are practically imposed to learn plain doo doo to the square when Relativity is taught as "science".

Of course these theories based in the imaginary space-time cannot change reality, but the problem is that they have green light to manipulate others by their influence.

This is a great damage to the intellect of the people. I'm very skeptical with such silly ideas of a flowing time and the expanding space, such are illusions created by motion and distance.

Look, NASA still don't answer my questions and this topic has been moved. Lol.

So, best of luck, but don't forget the bigger picture (theory won't change space-time).
No, of course no, because space-time doesn't exist, only space can be perceived but time is no more than a concept.

Finally, for the record, there is no physical existence of time. My theory states time is entirely hypothetical to a system continually seeking a type of balance between order and chaos. Time exists, sure, like mathematics is purely hypothetical, just like our MIND is purely hypothetical (ie, you can't see your mind, it's a concept, like mathematics). I've said this before in this forum, time is like the caduecues, the two snakes, both false, time before and time after, entwined around the continual sword of now. If you can find the technology for that description of time, you could be offering the caduceus. People might actually rightly call you a Doctor. If you try to convince people time does not exist, people will think you have lost your own time, your own mind. Time is a measurement tool, like mathematics. It is real, like mathematics. It is real, because it is that closely related to a real thing, space, it commands respect. Your quest, if you choose to accept it, is to find the real mathematics of time and associate that mathematics, that algorithm, to space. Then you might be able to help humanity better construct technology more aligned to the ecosystem.

If this has anything to do with relativeity, as I am sure it does, why not make it easy on yourself, the theory of time, and establish the relativity between two different space-time paradigms, before and after, and establish if there exists a type of geometry between those two space paradigms of time suggestive that space-time is curved in this continual "now" zone it seems we are "aware", as we are, in.

Could you maybe also provide me the link you have been trying to contact NASA with and I will see what I can do.

quest-connect@arc.nasa.gov

They use Outlook Express, but I guess that you can use your own e-mail provider.

I will suggest to the readers of this topic to write to NASA the same questions I posted in my first message.

I'm glad that you also are awake and that the massive propaganda made to impose deluded imaginations that time flows as a fact in some theories of science has not affected your theory.

It is clear that this inherited conventional idea still is imposed in order to maintain the idea that its followers are not in error. I am observing that "pride" is the biggest reason why most of the scientists cannot recognize this reality that time doesn't exist physically.

They are practically so convinced that time flows and dilates that they cannot accept other reasons to explain better the consequences of speed and gravity in the objects.

I have reviewed every claim of Relativity and I have discussed it with others. For example, the case of the Muons: several guys who support the idea that Muons appear to last longer because time dilates when they are exposed at high velocities...these guys have not a single idea of what is a Muon. They don't know that Muons are the leftovers of a collision between cosmic rays and the atoms of our atmosphere.

For them, Muons are unstable particles which arrive to earth as rain of Spring. Why? Because most books of Physics and Astronomy use the caricature showing the Muons falling to earth as rain from outer space.

This ignorance is what its causing that many followrers of Relativity cannot wake up to reality. In my reviews I have found that their brains appear practically to be brainwashed by a great campaing which methods are very effective. Unfortunatelly, most of the followers of these deluded ideas pay for to have more of such fantasies believing that these theories are part of science.

It is a guy called Lynd who attempted to brake such fantasies and he presented his papers to a Journal demonstrating that time is no more than a concept. Even when known mathematicians backed up his statements, the leaders of the scientific community didn't want to review the papers.

This is a case of manipulation and monopoly. If science is a branch which requires analysis and evaluation in order to obtain conclusions, the negative to review the papers of Lynd was the demonstration of how afraid are these leaders to be found wrong.

I guess that these scientific leaders feel very secured in their institutions and from there they can manipulate science at their will.

I have been checking the possibility to sue the theories which are based in the assumed physical existence of time.

By forcing to these leaders to come out of their caves (institutions) and to present the evidence of a physical existence of a flowing time in court, I thinbk that this can be made by suing the board of education to have in their science curriculum some theories which are not science.

As you can see, even NASA has the right to avoid responding my questions, but by a court order they must do it. They also teach in their programs for children and adults the current theories which assume the physical flowing and dilatation of time.

I think that by legal procedures the theories which do not belong to science can be removed from the curriculum of schools and universities.

It is clear that the leaders of the scientific community won't agree to discuss this matter about time and they will continue to have an obstinate position, so, there must be other methods to make them discuss this topivc about time in base of facts and not in base of philosophical thoughs which are what they have as their foundation.

60. Originally Posted by Lucifer
Originally Posted by Obviously
Originally Posted by Lucifer
Why is this thread still here and not where it belongs, pseudoscience? You think anything useful is going to exit from Battle of the Kooks? :?
It's called "Reviewing Relativity" why should it be in the "Pseuduscience" forum?
Maybe becasue it has nothing to do with the theory of relativity, has devoted a whole page (3) to nonsense and it's about the uninteresting discussion between two grade A kooks and their different unscientific babble?

Maybe, just maybe, because it is not about science but about pseudoscience?
Very well my dear Lucifer.

If Relativity is "science", please provide here the web links showing the tests and experiments made to prove that time exists physically.

I know that such web links don't exist but I give you the chance to try.

As you are going to fail with this, I must suggest you to check the Journals of Science, the records in the Universities (check Princeton as an example), the books of science in general and more.

You will notice that nobody has ever proved the physical existence of time.

Now, as this physical existence of time is discarded by the lack of evidence, we have Relativity predicting that the speed of an object will cause the dilatation of time. How in the world time will dilate if time doesn't exist physically at all?

You will read Hawking saying that Black Holes pull time. How in the world time will be pulled if time doesn't exist physically?

You have Relativity as pseudo-science until you provide the evidence that time flows as Einstein and Hawking said it does.
Prove it to yourself.

61. I agree with time being nothing but the perseption of change. If so, then could time dilatation be a component of length contraction?

62. Father time won't like any of this.

63. Originally Posted by conquer
Look, Relativity is the greatest error or the greatets fraud ever made in science. The fact is that time doesn't exist physically, and no one can take seriously the idea that the concept of time will "dilate" by the speeds of objects...come on.
This is called an Argument from Incredulity. Just because you don't believe it is completely irrelevant. Your belief or lack of it has zero impact on the validity of the theory. The theory stands because it explains observations many observations, offers accurate predictions, and has been validated countless times in both theoretical and practical contexts.
All your blustering and petulant disbelief have no effect on the facts.
Originally Posted by conquer
Unfortunately several fantasies are taught right now in schools and univerasities as if they were science.
This is the real problem.
I really won't care if Hawking with his deluded imaginations lives his life full of fantasies, but I do care if the school board of education accepts his imaginations as science.
.
There is certainly some serious delusion in place, but it does not originate from Hawking.
Originally Posted by conquer
This is a great damage to the intellect of the people. I'm very skeptical with such silly ideas of a flowing time and the expanding space, such are illusions created by motion and distance.
I am going to humour you briefly. Please define motion. I'm really looking forward to this.
Originally Posted by conquer
Look, NASA still don't answer my questions and this topic has been moved. Lol..
You are damn right it has been moved. You are lucky it hasn't been deleted. If you are going to post unsubstantiated, infantile drivel, you should be grateful we even allow it to remain anywhere on the forum.
Originally Posted by conquer
I have reviewed every claim of Relativity and I have discussed it with others. For example, the case of the Muons: several guys who support the idea that Muons appear to last longer because time dilates when they are exposed at high velocities...these guys have not a single idea of what is a Muon. They don't know that Muons are the leftovers of a collision between cosmic rays and the atoms of our atmosphere.
So you are basing your perception of how scientists view relativity on the basis of discussions with undergraduates/high school students/drop outs who have no relevant education in the field. and you openly admit this in your post! The depth of your delusion is truly remarkable.

64. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by conquer
Look, Relativity is the greatest error or the greatets fraud ever made in science. The fact is that time doesn't exist physically, and no one can take seriously the idea that the concept of time will "dilate" by the speeds of objects...come on.
This is called an Argument from Incredulity. Just because you don't believe it is completely irrelevant. Your belief or lack of it has zero impact on the validity of the theory. The theory stands because it explains observations many observations, offers accurate predictions, and has been validated countless times in both theoretical and practical contexts.
All your blustering and petulant disbelief have no effect on the facts.
I'm just curious. Are there any experiments or observations that confirms that speed/light affects time?

65. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I agree with time being nothing but the perseption of change. If so, then could time dilatation be a component of length contraction?
Actually no.

Lets say that your weight is 180lbs.

You do aerobic excercises and you lose 3 lbs. Does the measure of weight have been affected? No. The weight of your body has been affected.

You eat a lot, and your weight is now 200 lbs. The same, it is your body the one affected by such action.

Use any action which can cause changes in your body which will be reflected by the gain or losing of weight, in each case it is not the measure of weight or space affected but your own body suffering changes.

Lets translate the example with the measure of time.

You travel faster or slower and the speed will affect "your body".

So, the measure of time won't dilate or wil be contracted, neither space will suffer variations other than having you occupying more or less space, but your body will be the one suffering the changes due to the effects of speed.

So, in space the atomic clocks are the ones sufering the changes due to the change in their environment, the Muons will change their behaviour thanks to the changes in their environment.

This is a direct relationship which doesn't need of unnecessary explanations with a weird phenomena reaching the limits of the absurd like to assume that the concept of time dilates...

66. But i was thinking, since time IS change, i.e. movement THROUGH SPACE, then the entropic movement of matter should change as well as a result of length contraction. Thereby making a clock on the wall run slower and perceived time to pass slower from an outsider's frame of reference?

67. Originally Posted by dejawolf
or, lets just do it simple.

you are in a train moving at 60mph.
you aim for the back of the head of an old lady sitting in front of you,
and throw a ball.

now. whats going to happend?
if the relative motion of the ball is the same as the train, e.g 60mph
compared to the rail, the ball should drop down out of your hand, and not hit the nice old lady.
to hit the lady, the ball needs to travel at a higher or lower velocity than the train, depending on what way you throw it.

now, if you do this on a real train, you WILL hit the lady.
or if you're a terrible thrower, the ball will fly past the lady, and hit a wall or a seat.
same shit happends on a plane. or in a car.
or anywhere else where air friction doesnt matter.
Ok, I think that it is the moment for you to realize that several methematical stuff is good for fun only but that reality won't accept the mathematical results regardless of how correct they are.

Find the several links where it says that the Last Theorem of Fermat has been solved. Check the methods used for such solution. You'll see that there are a group of mathematical methods which together will fit the theorem x^n + y^n = z^n.

Now, such is good, and lets say that regardless of the controversies around these methods the theorem has been solved.

I ask you know to prove the Last Theorem of Fermat using grains of rice.

See? The same happens with lots of events which are mathematically sound but that in reality they are no more than temporary consequences or effects which actually won't change the final results of an event.

You have for example the speed of sound, In order to brake the barrier of sound you must travel faster than sound (340 meters per second). Only by traveling faster that its spread out in air you are breaking it. You use a turbine at 300,000 rpm or twice or 100 times faster and translate this data to linear speed per second and you'll notice that this kind of speed cannot brake the speed of sound.

Why? Because the turbine is going nowhere, and regardless of its speed it won't pass the speed of sound spreading out.

Lets use your example of a man walking inside the train. Yes, the classic mechanics is correct that a man walking at 1 km per hour inside a train traveling ay 60 km per hour is "in numbers" walking at 61 km per hour.

But, is this man really walking "faster" than the train? Did he arrived to the next train station before the train did it?

Of course no, and the reason is because by being inside the train wagon this man is going nowhere.

So, from one train station to another the speed of the train wagon is the one which rules regardles of the walking of the man inside going forward or backwards.

Einstein tried to escape the mathematical rule of classic mechanics by implying that with light at "relativistic speeds" the scenario will be different.

This smart dude used the example of the man inside the train wagon but when he added his light to the same example, he made the light to come out of the train wagon. This is his smart move which is not noticed by most of his readers.

Lets hold the light inside the train wagon. This light will born and die right inside the wagon. The wagon travels at 60 km per hour and such will be the speed of this light inside the wagon from one train station to the next one.

So, regardless of how "relativistic" was the speed of this light, as long as this light stays inside the train wagon, the speed of the wagon will rule because this light is going nowhere.

Lets go now to the satellites orbiting around earth.

Earth is traveling at 29 km per second around the Sun. The satellites are traveling around Earth at 7 km per second. What is the speed of the satellites around the Sun? Their speed is 29 km per second because the satellites are going nowhere, they are orbiting around Earth and they are not breaking any barrier.

Of course that mathematically you can obtain several results in accord to your perspectives, but the result which resume the total is the one which rules in a general conclusion.

You have no clue of how fast your assumed time flows or spreads out, so, you have not a single base foundation where to settled your calculations but points of reference subjected to your position in space.

You are on ground and from this point and in base of your perception of the universe you make calculations which will help you to find the speed of things around. You can claim your location as point A, and assume that your point is at rest.

But remember, this is a "valid" assumption which will help you to have data for several purposes. So, the data you obtain is valid only from your point of reference because another observer from outside of our solar system will use his point of reference as at rest but yours as traveling at 29km per second.

But, as motion rules in the universe, such point at rest doesn't exist, it is only a useful reference to obtain data.

In resume, we learn about the universe using a moving point of observation. We can be very precise with our calculations and we can establish our knowledge with great assurance using this point of observation. From here we calculate everything in base of what we perceive as a standard motion, a standard falling of objects, a standard size of things, and more.

We have standards which help us to be very accurate.

However, the standard of "time" is not based in a physically moving time but in a standard cycle of motion like the rotation of Earth or the vibration frequency of the atom of Caesium.

We have time as a data of reference only, this data of reference is very useful but time stil is no more than that: a concept, a measure, a parameter.

That objects suffer changes by speed or by gravity is a current observation which has several explanations from which the ones catalogued as misinterpretations are coming from Relativity because these are based in illusions.

As you can see, your assumptions that time dilates is invalid by several reasons beyond the fact that physically...time doesn't exist.

68. Originally Posted by KALSTER
But i was thinking, since time IS change, i.e. movement THROUGH SPACE, then the entropic movement of matter should change as well as a result of length contraction. Thereby making a clock on the wall run slower and perceived time to pass slower from an outsider's frame of reference?
Your thoughts should be valid only when time is found as the cause of the changes.

However, time is a data of reference obtained from the changes of the motion of things which are cycled or standard from our point of view.

It is not correct to say that time is change or movement through space because time doesn't change at all, what it changes is the motion of things around.

You eat a lot and gain weigth, the measure of weight -which is not a physical entity- didn't change and still the same but your weight (the reference which belongs to you) has increased because the changes in your physical body.

Your "time" can change as a reference when you talk about decay or speed, not so as a physical entity suffering dilatation because time doesn't exist physically.

69. time is a data of reference obtained from the changes of the motion of things which are cycled or standard
That is exactly what I am saying. Time does not exist as a seperate entity, mearly as the perseption of change. I am suggesting that as a side-effect of length contraction, that we/matter would move/age/decay at a slower rate RELATIVE TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD. For example the distance a particle moves (electron in brain electricity), changes relative to the outside world.

70. {All factors of a element must be a own element.
{All elements have a own factor time.
Time is the only element.

71. Originally Posted by Obviously
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by conquer
Look, Relativity is the greatest error or the greatets fraud ever made in science. The fact is that time doesn't exist physically, and no one can take seriously the idea that the concept of time will "dilate" by the speeds of objects...come on.
This is called an Argument from Incredulity. Just because you don't believe it is completely irrelevant. Your belief or lack of it has zero impact on the validity of the theory. The theory stands because it explains observations many observations, offers accurate predictions, and has been validated countless times in both theoretical and practical contexts.
All your blustering and petulant disbelief have no effect on the facts.
I'm just curious. Are there any experiments or observations that confirms that speed/light affects time?
Yes. Somewhere on the forum - no time to check right now - s a description of an experiment conducted with two atomic clocks flown around the world in opposite directions. The difference in time between the two clocks and betwen ground station was in accordance with theory.

72. The holy trininty?

Three references as one?

Where?

This is very interesting NEWS.

73. Yes.

Where exists this trinity reference?

74. Steam; You might google *Jason W Hinson* who has many articles in supporting Relativity, referencing those time clocks on super sonic aircraft. There is other evidence, such as the our Shuttles which indicate slight losses in time.

IMO; There should be no loss in time to the traveler, but should be to the by stander. That is to a person on a craft moving 99% C, for say 50 years and in some orbit say around the sun and Earth, would age that 50 years, but to the people on earth much less time would have passed. Possibly a year. Since my thoughts reverse Relativity in some ways and I have no idea why I think this, its difficult to discuss. I can only agree that the perception of time is somehow related to velocity.

Conquer; If you are in the Caboose, when the train leave a station and walk forward to the Engine, you do arrive a the next station soon, than if you stayed on the caboose, that arriving after you pending on the distance or your speed.

75. Originally Posted by streamSystems
The holy trininty?
Three references as one?
Where?
This is very interesting NEWS.
I can understand that someone so poorly informed might think this is news, but that is hardly the case.

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)

76. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by Obviously
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by conquer
Look, Relativity is the greatest error or the greatets fraud ever made in science. The fact is that time doesn't exist physically, and no one can take seriously the idea that the concept of time will "dilate" by the speeds of objects...come on.
This is called an Argument from Incredulity. Just because you don't believe it is completely irrelevant. Your belief or lack of it has zero impact on the validity of the theory. The theory stands because it explains observations many observations, offers accurate predictions, and has been validated countless times in both theoretical and practical contexts.
All your blustering and petulant disbelief have no effect on the facts.
I'm just curious. Are there any experiments or observations that confirms that speed/light affects time?
Yes. Somewhere on the forum - no time to check right now - s a description of an experiment conducted with two atomic clocks flown around the world in opposite directions. The difference in time between the two clocks and betwen ground station was in accordance with theory.
That "experiment" is nothing more than the corollary of the fraud made in 1919 which validated Relativity. (To be informed of the fraud please read "Einstein's Luck, by John Wallace).

Look, if traveling backwards the rotation of Earth giives you that "time" flows backwards as well, well, there are planets and satellites rotating and orbiting in a backwards direction than ours, and from such silly idea of yours you are saying that time flows backwards in those planets and moons. Such ideas are plain stupid.

Clocks "malfunction" when are exposed to a different environment other than the one where they were calibrated.

The assumed confirmnation of Relativity by such clock experiments are no more than the hoaxres performed by relativists to kep suckinbg goverment grants and survive with great salaries.

In reality, Relativity is a good for nothing theory, nothing useful has been obtained by such pseduo-scientific theory. The clocks in space need cof a receiver which will update their data and this calibration was made in base of trial and error, not so because the formulas of Relativity predicted them decades ago.

The best evidence is found when the "so called charts" of Relativity appeared after the failures of the clocks were found. Only after the review of the microseconds of difference between the clocks in space and the clocks on ground was made, the charts were made to fit the observations with Relativity. This is a play with numbers which can be made by any good mathematician.

77. Originally Posted by jackson33
Steam; You might google *Jason W Hinson* who has many articles in supporting Relativity, referencing those time clocks on super sonic aircraft. There is other evidence, such as the our Shuttles which indicate slight losses in time.

IMO; There should be no loss in time to the traveler, but should be to the by stander. That is to a person on a craft moving 99% C, for say 50 years and in some orbit say around the sun and Earth, would age that 50 years, but to the people on earth much less time would have passed. Possibly a year. Since my thoughts reverse Relativity in some ways and I have no idea why I think this, its difficult to discuss. I can only agree that the perception of time is somehow related to velocity.

Conquer; If you are in the Caboose, when the train leave a station and walk forward to the Engine, you do arrive a the next station soon, than if you stayed on the caboose, that arriving after you pending on the distance or your speed.
Lol. From train station to train station the speed which rules is the train wagon speed where you are in. You depart at 7:00 am from a train station and arrive to the next one at 9:00 am, and your speed was 60km per hour regardless if you walked forward or backwards in the train. You arrived at the time when the train arrived, not before and not after.

The best method to discard the fantasies of Relativity is usin the "frame of reference" of the Sun. From the Sun, the earth and the satellites are traveling both togather at 29km per second and no dilatation of time happens. Face it, Relativity is anything but science.

Again, read the writings of Einstein again, he evaded the fact that light traveling inside the train will travel at the speed of the train wagon as long as the light starts and dies inside the wagon.

Einstein was what is known as "an idiot with iniciatives", he was a very smart guy but he wasn't a genius but he became a lunatic when he invented his theories of Relativity.

It is amazing how most of his readers didn't notice his tricks.

78. MUONS

One of the greatest hoaxes found in Relativity is the topic of Muons.

When the unstable particles were discovered using chambers, the scientists ignored the origin of these particles. They named the particles as Mesons, Pions, Kaons, V Particles and more.

One Italian scientist thought that by exposing the discovered particles to high speeds it might extend the duration of the particles. Lets be clear that these particles catched in the chambers ended as electrons in their decay.

So, this scientist thought that by exposing the unstable particle to high speeds the theory of Relativity will be confirmed one more time. This is a clear signal that his intentions were to prove Relativity right at all costs, something which goes against the rules of the scientific method which establishes that tests and experiments must be impartial.

Well, The Muon appeared to last longer after being exposed to speeds close to the speed of light.

But, look at this, even when you can accept that the chart given by relativists appear to fit with the longer duration of the Muon, still you must explain the mechanism.

So far, a guy called Silver who was the former director of the Israel Techno Institute tried to explain such mechanism.

This dude said the following:

"The elementary particles can be thought of as having an internal coin thrower, different types of particle having different rates of throw. Heads, I disintegrate; Tails, I live a bit longer. The thrower knows when to throw because he has a clock. Pressure and temperature changes have no effect on the rate of this internal clock. In experiments at CERN, a beam of muons has been induced to rush round a circular tube at appeds of 99.94% of the speed of light." (The Ascent of Science)

Lets stop right here.

Look the fantasies created to "explain" the mechanism which makes the muon to last longer: A coin thower and a clock.

No doubt that the minds of relativists are malfunctioning when they cannot see other than clocks everywhere including muons.

This analogy of Silver is nothing more than crap to the square.

Lets find out what is happening with muons.

For this purpose lets make a more accurate analogy.

The Muon is the leftover of a collision between a cosmic ray and the atoms of the atmosphera.

So, a cosmic ray travels at high speeds through space until reaches the earth and collides with the atoms of the atmosphere. From this collision several parts from the cosmic ray are split everywhere. These parts will start to decay very fast until they end as electrons.

Lets compare this event with an airplane which travels very fast from high altitudes to the ocean waters. There is a collision and the airplane parts split and go down under the waters.

The motor of the airplane is the Muon of the cosmic ray, the battery of the airplane is the Kaon of the cosmic ray, and so and so.

You have the leftover particles of the cosmic ray decaying because our atmosphera is not their best environment, their best environment is the outer space traveling at high speeds as a whole, this is to say, as a cosmic ray.

Well, you "pull out" the motor which is under the water and after drying it out you try to start the motor. The motor might work for a little while but it will die again because its internal parts have been exposed to the water.

As you can see, the functional motion of the "leftover" of the airplane can "last a little longer" by exposing the motor to its best environment.

The same happens with the leftover of the cosmic ray, when you expose it in "vacuum" and at high speeds.

There is not such fantasy of "dilatation of time" involved here, it is just to expose the particle to its best environment.

The Muon won't last longer anyway because its fast decay will be imminent, the Muon is not a particle which can survive alone, the Muon is part of a greater particle (the cosmic ray) having a collision with another particle (the atoms of the atmosphere) and it won't speed back again and travel by itself.

The Muon will start to recover its functions only when is part of a whole and this whole travels fast at high speeds.

The common idea of Muons arriving to earth as cosmic rain is the hoax picture used by relativists to deceive others by giving the impression that Muons come to earth as independent particles.

The relativists do not mention that Muons are leftovers of collisions because be telling the truth their theory is automatically exposed as a fraud.

Lol, the most ridiculous comparison ever made by the supporters of Relativity is to think that an organic compound will have the same reactions as an unstable particle when is exposed to high speeds.

Just expose a mouse at 99.94% of the speed of light -as you did with the Muon- and look for a vacumm cleaner to clean up the mess around.

79. your logic is faulty at heart.
take the train example again.

this is a train station.

which of the red dots is closer to the exit, the one on the front of the train,
or the one at the back.

now take a conveyor belt, or a rolling stairway.
is a person standing, or walking on a conveyor belt moving faster?

by your "logic" both persons would arrive at the same time, no matter whether they walk or stand.[/img]

80. Originally Posted by Can'ttellhisassfromaholeintheground
The elementary particles can be thought of as having an internal coin thrower, different types of particle having different rates of throw. Heads, I disintegrate; Tails, I live a bit longer. The thrower knows when to throw because he has a clock. Pressure and temperature changes have no effect on the rate of this internal clock. In experiments at CERN, a beam of muons has been indi=uced to rush round a circular tube at appeds of 99.94% of the speed of light."

Lets stop right here.

Look the fantasies created to "explain" the mechanism which makes the muon to last longer: A coin thower and a clock.

No doubt that the minds of relativists are malfunctioning when they cannot see other than clocks everywhere including muons
Can you spell a-n-a-l-o-g-y??
The only brain that's malfunctioning here is your's, sorry dude.

Originally Posted by theguywhocomesupwithbullshittyanalogies
Lets compare this event with an airplane which travels very fast from high altitudes to the ocean waters. There is a collision and the airplane parts split and go down under the waters.
The motor of the airplane is the Muon of the cosmic ray, the battery of the airplane is the Kaon of the cosmic ray, and so and so.
You have the leftover particles of the cosmic ray decaying because our atmosphera is not their best environment, their best environment is the outer space traveling at high speeds as a whole, this is to say, as a cosmic ray.
Well, you "pull out" the motor which is under the water and after drying it out you try to start the motor. The motor might work for a little while buyt it will die again because its internal parts have been exposed to the water.
As you can see, the functional motion of the "leftover" of the airplane can "last a little longer" by exposing the motor in its best environment.
So this is cool, let's make it warm and cozy for atomic particles and they will live happily ever after. And while you are at it: couldn't you bring the Muon a Martini, shaken, not stirred and fondle it for a while? This puts an extra couple of microseconds on the clock!

And what about the Maryland experiment where it was shown that there's a gravitational time dilation?? Those planes were close to being at rest but high up in the air and alas´! there you have the data for this prediction of the ToR. Of course, all bogus data, the clocks were removed from their cozy environment and put in a PLANE!

And did you do the experiment in Physics 305 Lab? You know, the one where you shoot electrons in a magnetic field at different speeds and then try to deflect them with said magnetic field. Then you determine the mass of electrons by measuring the diameter of the curve the deflected electrons fly within a magnetic field. At first, everything checks out fine, at least when you operate at low speeds, but as you get close to relativistic speeds the whole thing goes way off the charts as the mass of the relativistic electrons increases. I did actually. And if you do the math everything checks out fine. You did Physics 305 Lab, didn't you??

Now that we all know that you are right and all the others are totally wrong, can you give me a reason WHY the fu*k the "establishment" is coaxing us all into buying into the relativity crap?? And why the hell do those dumbass engineers at NASA (and for the future also the ESA) figure relativity into the equations they use to calculate the signals for the GPS satellites? I mean, as this is a bunch of crap, why should they correct for the motion of the satellites? They don't have to (according to you) but yet they do? Man, they should give you the position as boss of the Gallileo Space Program, why the hell is ESA wasting money on this?

And from the beginning all the experiments trying to rebutt ToR were faked. The Pysicists all huddled together and conspired to tell everyone the lies about this theory? Now that's a first.

81. Conquer, if you wish to challenge relativity with an alternate theory, or because you have falsified it in some replicable manner you are free to do so here on the pseudoscience sub-forum. If you intend to post nonsense and invoke conspiracy theories you will rapidly find this thread consigned to yhe trash can. Your choice.

82. Originally Posted by dejawolf
your logic is faulty at heart.
take the train example again.

this is a train station.

which of the red dots is closer to the exit, the one on the front of the train,
or the one at the back.

now take a conveyor belt, or a rolling stairway.
is a person standing, or walking on a conveyor belt moving faster?

by your "logic" both persons would arrive at the same time, no matter whether they walk or stand.[/img]
Look, check your drawing again. How long it will take to the traveler to walk from the back of the second wagon to the front of the first wagon?

In a traveling which last two hours the walking person has reached the front wagion in less than 5 minutes, and after that this person must have to wait for the train to arrive to the next station.

Even when he did a temporary speed faster than other passengers, the speed of the train still ruling because it is the top speed as a whole, this is to say, the train wagon has arrived on time and the persons inside are subjected to such arriving of the wagon. The person who walked temporarily "faster" than the train it has arrived at the time that the train arrived, not before and not later.

This is why I can state that it won't be any "difference" if the person stays sit or walks around inside the wagon. The speed of the wagon rules.

The same happens with the earth and the satellites, the satellites are not traveling faster than us when you use the Sun as the point of observation, (you call it "frame of reference").

With this point of observation the idea that satellites are traveling faster than "us" is found false, the satellites are traveling "with us" around the Sun, and in case a satellite escapes our gravitational pulling, its traveling will be slower than ours because they won't reach our 29km per second by themselves.

So, such "time dilatation" preached by relativists is a fake.

And again, as long as you don't prove to yourself and others the physical existence of time, the theories of Relativity are deluded imaginations only.

Did you send to NASA the questions I made in my first message?

I strongly apply for you and anyone to answer properly the questions with the correspondent back up (scientific experiments) before still defending the fantasies found in Relativity.

In other words, when you don't have the primeval fact which it shgould be an existing physical time, the consequence is that you have nothing to argue against my points.

Look at my position, I have the verifiable statement that time doesn't exist physically, with this fact alone in my hand I have already demonstrated that Relativity is nothing but nonsenses.

If you disagree with this, the only thiong required from you is to provide the evidence that time exists physically by the application of the scientific method.

As you can see, my request is very simple and it is supported 100% by the requisites established by science.

On the other hand, Relativity is not science as long as time is not proved as physically existent.

83. Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
Originally Posted by Can'ttellhisassfromaholeintheground
The elementary particles can be thought of as having an internal coin thrower, different types of particle having different rates of throw. Heads, I disintegrate; Tails, I live a bit longer. The thrower knows when to throw because he has a clock. Pressure and temperature changes have no effect on the rate of this internal clock. In experiments at CERN, a beam of muons has been indi=uced to rush round a circular tube at appeds of 99.94% of the speed of light."

Lets stop right here.

Look the fantasies created to "explain" the mechanism which makes the muon to last longer: A coin thower and a clock.

No doubt that the minds of relativists are malfunctioning when they cannot see other than clocks everywhere including muons
Can you spell a-n-a-l-o-g-y??
The only brain that's malfunctioning here is your's, sorry dude.
Of course I can spell it and I know what analogy means: similarity in some respects between things otherwise unlike; partial resemblance (Webster Dictionary)

Read the words of Silver, this dude was not making an analogy, he was a complete ignorant of the meaning of what analogy really means.
I will explain you why.

Silver did not compare the Muon with anything as an analogy would require, you can see that Silver "added from his imagination some characteristics to the Muon that the muon doesn't have, like a coin machine thrower and an internal clock.

In my message I did an analogy by comparing the collision of cosmic rays with the atoms of our atmosphera with an airplane colliding with the water of the ocean.

Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
Originally Posted by theguywhocomesupwithbullshittyanalogies
Lets compare this event with an airplane which travels very fast from high altitudes to the ocean waters. There is a collision and the airplane parts split and go down under the waters.
The motor of the airplane is the Muon of the cosmic ray, the battery of the airplane is the Kaon of the cosmic ray, and so and so.
You have the leftover particles of the cosmic ray decaying because our atmosphera is not their best environment, their best environment is the outer space traveling at high speeds as a whole, this is to say, as a cosmic ray.
Well, you "pull out" the motor which is under the water and after drying it out you try to start the motor. The motor might work for a little while buyt it will die again because its internal parts have been exposed to the water.
As you can see, the functional motion of the "leftover" of the airplane can "last a little longer" by exposing the motor in its best environment.
So this is cool, let's make it warm and cozy for atomic particles and they will live happily ever after. And while you are at it: couldn't you bring the Muon a Martini, shaken, not stirred and fondle it for a while? This puts an extra couple of microseconds on the clock!
Sure, you are trying to be funny now...it won't work, face it, the mechanism given by relativists suck.

And what about the Maryland experiment where it was shown that there's a gravitational time dilation?? Those planes were close to being at rest but high up in the air and alas´! there you have the data for this prediction of the ToR. Of course, all bogus data, the clocks were removed from their cozy environment and put in a PLANE!
Boil water at the sea level and water at the top of the mountain. What you will see? that water boils at different rates. What is the answer? Gravity indeed affects matter without exception.

What?! Are you going to say that water boils slower because "time dilatation"? Just get out of here! :P

And did you do the experiment in Physics 305 Lab? You know, the one where you shoot electrons in a magnetic field at different speeds and then try to deflect them with said magnetic field. Then you determine the mass of electrons by measuring the diameter of the curve the deflected electrons fly within a magnetic field. At first, everything checks out fine, at least when you operate at low speeds, but as you get close to relativistic speeds the whole thing goes way off the charts as the mass of the relativistic electrons increases. I did actually. And if you do the math everything checks out fine. You did Physics 305 Lab, didn't you??
More than that! I reviewed the claims made that Einstein "predicted" the increase of mass by effects of fast speeds.

The following is "for your eyes only", but you can copy it and paste it to give it to others. ( I know you won't do it)

Look, when Einstein was a clerck in the patent office, he used to read all the discoveries and experiments made by others, so he -as the idiot with iniciatives- found out the way to add his own version and take the credit of those discoveries.

I will tell you why.

Look, in the last decade of the 19th Century two scientists, J.J. Thomson (in Cambridge) and W. Kaufmann (in Gottingen) investigated the electromagntic deflection of fast cathode rays, both indeed found that the mass of the particles appeared to depend on velocity.

Years later, F. Hasenohrl showed that light radiation enclosed in a vessel increased the vessel's resistance to acceleration, and that mass was indeed altered in the process.

In 1900,Poicare -the discoverer of the formula e=mc^2- suggested that this inertia or resistance to acceleration was a property of all energy and that was not applied to electromagnetic energy.

Tell me something, having that experiments -where the observation of increasing of mass by speed was reported- were already made years before "Einstein's writings", how it comes that some dudes claim that Einstein "predicted" such phenomenon?

Now that we all know that you are right and all the others are totally wrong, can you give me a reason WHY the fu*k the "establishment" is coaxing us all into buying into the relativity crap?? And why the hell do those dumbass engineers at NASA (and for the future also the ESA) figure relativity into the equations they use to calculate the signals for the GPS satellites? I mean, as this is a bunch of crap, why should they correct for the motion of the satellites? They don't have to (according to you) but yet they do? Man, they should give you the position as boss of the Gallileo Space Program, why the hell is ESA wasting money on this?
Look, I have been talking with a dude who make the contracts for goverment with companies who sell GPS systems.

Tell me, would you buy a system when the seller tells you that the clocks will malfunction but it is a receiver included which will fix the problem by updating the errors so finally the system will work properly? This seller won't sell many GPS systems by telling the truth.

The smart seller will say that "time suffers" variations and that the clocks used in their satellites are the perfect machines which never will fail, and this seller will have more clients.

Reality is that the whole calculations made about the differences of data from clocks in satellites with clocks on ground have been set in the basis of trial and error.

Before the manufacture of the receiver which updates the errors, there was not a single chart made by relativists to be used as the model to follow so the data from satellites can be updated.

The receiver which fix the errors caused by the malfunction of atomic clocks due to a different environment is a device created after the differences of data were analyzed.

And from the beginning all the experiments trying to rebutt ToR were faked. The Pysicists all huddled together and conspired to tell everyone the lies about this theory? Now that's a first.
From the beginning Relativity was validated with fraud. The science historian John Wallace in his book Einstein's Luck tried to justify the fraud performed by Eddington by saying that all the experiments made around Relativity are valid but the observations of the solar eclipse in 1919.

John Wallace didn't realize that by exposing the fraud made in 1919 the theory of Relativity was -by law- automatically invalidated.

You can read in this book the several causes which invalidated Relativity in 1919, from the lack of at least six fixed stars to make the measurements of the displacement of the image of the affected star... to the "make ups" made by Eddington in the plates in order to validate Relativity at all costs.

So, legally Relativity is an invalid theory...you cannot ask for a special treatment with this fake theory.

Relativity is not science.

84. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Conquer, if you wish to challenge relativity with an alternate theory, or because you have falsified it in some replicable manner you are free to do so here on the pseudoscience sub-forum. If you intend to post nonsense and invoke conspiracy theories you will rapidly find this thread consigned to yhe trash can. Your choice.
Do you know that reviews must be made in every heory to check their veracity?

As far as you can observe, the claims that time flows and dilates is a fake because time doesn't exist physically.

There is no need to challenge Relativity, the simple step is to discard Relativity from science and keep it as philosophy or fiction.

Every statement of mine can be reviewed (names of scientists, names of authors of books, every quote from them) in order to verify their veracity.

The only nonsense found in science and in these forums is the acceptance of a theory which is based solely in deluded imaginations.

I don't know about you but as a lover of science I find repugnant the current situation where lots of clowns are making profit by preaching a theory which is not science.

Thee is no need of a new theory to replace another one, such is false.

Relativity has been invented in those years when philosophy was accepted as a starting point, notice for example, that Einstein claimed that he was in a state of "psychic tension" and great confusion when he wrote the equation e=mc^2. According to Denis Brian (in his book "Einstein"), later on Einstein asked the journalists not to publish about this.

Further, Brian narrates that the inspiration of Einstein was the writings of Ernst Mach and David Hume. According to this biography about Einstein, this dude claimed that reading A treatise of Human Nature was a great inspiration to his discovery of Relativity, and that without such philosophic thoughts he may never reached the desired solution.

I wonder what part of this book of David Hume was the "inspiration" to Einstein, because about "time" we have Augustine, Kant, Bergson, and Nietzche as philosophers who wrote thoughts about time before the invention of Relativity. Plus, Nietzche could be a beter inspiration because he denied the existence of a God person like Einstein did later on, even when he stated that "ideas come from God" (Albert Einstein).

Today, philosophy alone is not valid to start a theory of science. You must have to have a factual starting point to iniciate a theory of science, otherwise your theory won't be validated by tests and experiments.

This is to say, how are you going to measure a "dilatation of time" when you cannot perceive time in the first place?

You can measure the malfunction of clocks because clocks are physically existent and you can make tests and experiments with them.

If you want to talk about science you must base your points in facts not so in imaginations.

85. Lets review the graphics about the famous displacement of the image of a star by the "gravity of the Sun".

According to Einstein the displacement should be the least, and for this he stated that it should be up to 1.72 seconds.

Centuries before Einstein, Newton predicted that the image of a star should be displaced in an arc of 0.8 seconds.

We have the scenario where Einstein doubled the amount predicted by Newton.

For the ones who ignore what 0.8 seconds of arc of displacememnt means, the science historian Wallace made a very good comparison by saying that such amount is similar as to measuring less than a width of a penny as seen from over a mile away!(Einstein's Luck by J. Wallace)

By consequence, the arc of displacement given by Einstein means twice of a width of a penny as seen from over a mile away.

What do you see in the books related physics about the graphics showing Relativity as proved correct by the displacement of the image of a star?...Lol, look at the exaggerated caricature (because a graphic it is not) found in most of those books:

You can clearly see why people seems to believe in Relativity, the current propaganda about this philosophy as science is a very well studied method to deceive the masses.

86. The current graphics found in most books of physics showing the displacement of the star caused by the apparent influence of the gravity of the Sun are exaggerated caricatures.

Lets see now a more accurate illustration showing what you will see in space when a star is located near the circle of the Sun -from our point of observation- and its image is displaced by assuming that the gravity of the Sun causes it.

You will notice that the requisite of at least other six "fixed" stars is needed for measuring purposes, these other stars must be located far away of the influence of the Sun. In 1919 this essential requisite wasn't fulfilled, by consequence the measures made at this time are invalid because cannot be considered as accurate enough to validate the conclusions.

Can you see any big difference of position of the same affected image of the targeted star by comparing this graphic from above with the location of the star in the graphic below?

You are facing now the trouble found in 1919 with the plates took from the British expeditions, you cannot tell the difference just be looking the images with your naked eyes, you will need to measure with instruments the difference of locations because the displacement is almost not notorious at all.

The image of the star in the second graphic has been indeed moved about "two seconds", you might need to print the images and use a ruler to find it out.

No doubt that Relativity is not science...and I can observe that its followers are usually people with very poor knowledge about what reality is but that they are people who enjoy the owning of great imaginations.

87. Originally Posted by dudethat reallydoesnotgetit
Years later, F. Hasenohrl showed that light radiation enclosed in a vessel increased the vessel's resistance to acceleration, and that mass was indeed altered in the process

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH............

Oh goodness.........this is getting funnier by the minute. I'll second ophiolites oppinion. ................move this to the trash section. "Light enclosed in a vessel" GASP!!!!!!

Assumption: you did not even finish high school, did you? I'd be surprised.
Back to my question: did you actually DO (like in: "make it") ANY measurements? I really do not believe it.

So he lived happily ever after and still di have No clue.....hehehehe

Boil water at the sea level and water at the top of the mountain. What you will see? that water boils at different rates. What is the answer?

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH............

Difference in pressure. Physics 101. Anyway, this will be the last reply as I see this as a giant waste of time and energy (and what I think about this, I have posted in another thread but Ophiolite does not like it )

88. Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
Originally Posted by dudethat reallydoesnotgetit
Years later, F. Hasenohrl showed that light radiation enclosed in a vessel increased the vessel's resistance to acceleration, and that mass was indeed altered in the process

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH............

Oh goodness.........this is getting funnier by the minute. I'll second ophiolites oppinion. ................move this to the trash section. "Light enclosed in a vessel" GASP!!!!!!
Oops! sigh* Too late for to edit such error, Twaaannnggg has already used it to try to make look bad...but, Twaaannnggg, today light can be storaged, this was done some years ago and the experimenters are trying to see if such light can be used again.

So far, the storage of light proves my other review that we cannot see other than the present of the universe, of course, such is another topic which exposes that the current ideas that we are observing the universe as it was in its past are no more than crap to the square.

On the other hand, what it will go to the trash very soon is Relativity because besides to be a fraud it is good for nothing.

Assumption: you did not even finish high school, did you? I'd be surprised.
Back to my question: did you actually DO (like in: "make it") ANY measurements? I really do not believe it.
Lol, it appears that the one who still in kindergarten its you, because you still believing that time exists physically and that flows and dilates.

1)- What is the factual evidence that time exists physically?

2)- Who made the tests and experiments solely to prove the physical existence of time?

3)- When these tests and experiments were performed?

4)- What methods were used for this purpose?

5) Is there any instrument capable to detect the physical passage of time?

So he lived happily ever after and still di have No clue.....hehehehe
It appears that you have no a single valid statement with the proper experimental data to back up your disagreements against my review.

Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
Originally Posted by dudethat reallydoesnotgetit
Boil water at the sea level and water at the top of the mountain. What you will see? that water boils at different rates. What is the answer?

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH............

Difference in pressure. Physics 101. Anyway, this will be the last reply as I see this as a giant waste of time and energy (and what I think about this, I have posted in another thread but Ophiolite does not like it )
Thanks Twaaannnggg, you have answered yourself why atomic clocks malfunction as soon they are exposed to a different gravity other than the one where they were calibrated.

Difference of gravity does affect matter without exception, and atomic clocks are not excluded.

Lest see, up to this point we still have questions about the physical existence of time that even NASA avoids to answer. Lest hope for Twaaannnggg to answer the questions properly because apparently he is so lucky that he indeed has finished high school.

We have exaggerated caricatures in books of physics which are deceiver drawings representing the deluded imaginations of some 'so called themselves" scientists.

We have a displacement of the image of a star caused by anything but the gravity of the Sun because the displacement is greater than the top limit predicted by Einstein which is 1.78 seconds.

89. What causes the displacement of images of celestial bodies and objects in general to be displaced when they are near another body or object?

Lets see. If you make a BBQ in your backyard you will notice that the images behind the BBQ grill appear to be distorted.

The heat waves and the smoke are causing such displacement of images behind the BBQ grill. This is simple physics.

Lets use the best way to learn physics, which is "the simpler the better".

So, we have the factual event that temperature and gases can cause the displacement of images of objects located behind the BBQ grill.

What makes you think that the same won't happen with the image of stars located behind the Sun?

Simple physics. You don't need to believe in crap like "distorted space time and similar deluded ideas. We know by fact that Relativity has been validated with fraud in 1919, so we have no reason to believe in such "magical existence" of space-time.

So, we must find out what causes the displacement of images of stars in space, we have inclusive images reflected twiv=ce and even four times in different locations. Gravity cannot cause such phenomena, the most factual answer is found when we think in the atmosphera of stars and planets plus the gases and difference of temperature around stars and planets as well.

For example, actually we don't see the stars location right in their current position but their images are displaced by our atmosphera.

Observe the graphic below and check the similitude between our atmosphera and the atmosphera of the Sun causing the displacement of images of bodies -from our point of view, of course-.

We also have mirages which are caused by difference of density in the air and heat, what makes you think that the same won't happen in outer space around stars and galaxies?

We know now -Einstein was an ignorant about this- that the space between the Sun and the earth is filled with gases and particles, and that the amount of gases and particles -of course- are found in greater quatities around the Sun.

So, the temperature around the Sun is also hotter than far away of it -simple physics- and the mixture of heat and gases create the same environment necessary to displace the image of any star near the circle of the Sun.

Simple physics is used very well to discard the complicated and good for nothing deluded imaginations found in Relativity.

The ignorance of those years when Einstein invented his theories is obvious, in those years they thought that space around the Sun was "perfectly empty", something which has been proved incorrect already.

90. Originally Posted by conquer
So, we have the factual event that temperature and gases can cause the displacement of images of objects located behind the BBQ grill.

What makes you think that the same won't happen with the image of stars located behind the Sun?
This made me laugh out loud. You're a funny guy.

91. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by conquer
So, we have the factual event that temperature and gases can cause the displacement of images of objects located behind the BBQ grill.

What makes you think that the same won't happen with the image of stars located behind the Sun?
This made me laugh out loud. You're a funny guy.
You can laugh at your please, besides, I heard that idiots do it all the time...

The Sun is surrounded by gases and other particles, this is a fact.

The surroundings of the Sun are hotter as close as they are to the Sun as well, you have two physical events which can easily cause a distorsion of images of stars located near the circle of the Sun.

Even more, the displacement of the image of the star in 1919 was so little that atmospheric disturbances on earth were also considered to discard the idea that gravity caused it.

The same applies to consider the atmospheric disturbances found in the Sun...unless you think that the Sun has no atmosphera...

The funny situation is that you can laugh at your please but you cannot disprove my statements. The laughs are in my court. :-D

92. Originally Posted by conquer
Originally Posted by dejawolf
your logic is faulty at heart.
take the train example again.

this is a train station.

which of the red dots is closer to the exit, the one on the front of the train,
or the one at the back.

now take a conveyor belt, or a rolling stairway.
is a person standing, or walking on a conveyor belt moving faster?

by your "logic" both persons would arrive at the same time, no matter whether they walk or stand.[/img]
Look, check your drawing again. How long it will take to the traveler to walk from the back of the second wagon to the front of the first wagon?

In a traveling which last two hours the walking person has reached the front wagion in less than 5 minutes, and after that this person must have to wait for the train to arrive to the next station.

Even when he did a temporary speed faster than other passengers, the speed of the train still ruling because it is the top speed as a whole, this is to say, the train wagon has arrived on time and the persons inside are subjected to such arriving of the wagon. The person who walked temporarily "faster" than the train it has arrived at the time that the train arrived, not before and not later.

This is why I can state that it won't be any "difference" if the person stays sit or walks around inside the wagon. The speed of the wagon rules.

The same happens with the earth and the satellites, the satellites are not traveling faster than us when you use the Sun as the point of observation, (you call it "frame of reference").

With this point of observation the idea that satellites are traveling faster than "us" is found false, the satellites are traveling "with us" around the Sun, and in case a satellite escapes our gravitational pulling, its traveling will be slower than ours because they won't reach our 29km per second by themselves.

So, such "time dilatation" preached by relativists is a fake.

And again, as long as you don't prove to yourself and others the physical existence of time, the theories of Relativity are deluded imaginations only.

Did you send to NASA the questions I made in my first message?

I strongly apply for you and anyone to answer properly the questions with the correspondent back up (scientific experiments) before still defending the fantasies found in Relativity.

In other words, when you don't have the primeval fact which it shgould be an existing physical time, the consequence is that you have nothing to argue against my points.

Look at my position, I have the verifiable statement that time doesn't exist physically, with this fact alone in my hand I have already demonstrated that Relativity is nothing but nonsenses.

If you disagree with this, the only thiong required from you is to provide the evidence that time exists physically by the application of the scientific method.

As you can see, my request is very simple and it is supported 100% by the requisites established by science.

On the other hand, Relativity is not science as long as time is not proved as physically existent.
and you're clearly confined to stupidity.
are you trying to be a fucking idiot? because you're doing one of the best performances of a fucking braindead zombie i've ever seen.

anyways your statement breaks down in a large enough train.
say you have a 1 hour train ride at 60kph, and a 5km long train.
2 passengers enter into the rear wagon.
me and you.
we both know that when the train stops at the next stop, only the front wagon will fit at the trainstop.
but me, being smart, decides to walk the 5km in the train at 5kph.
you just sit there in the rear wagon.
1 hour after, i am in the front of the train, you are in the rear.
i am in the front wagon, and can walk out of the train at the station.
whereas you are 5km back, and have to WALK FOR AN HOUR to get to the front wagon. by then, the train has already left the station since it only stops for 5 minutes at each stop,
and you'll know better than to make stupid statements on a science forum,
and then trying to prove them with bogus tests.

93. Originally Posted by dejawolf
Originally Posted by conquer
Originally Posted by dejawolf
your logic is faulty at heart.
take the train example again.

this is a train station.

which of the red dots is closer to the exit, the one on the front of the train,
or the one at the back.

now take a conveyor belt, or a rolling stairway.
is a person standing, or walking on a conveyor belt moving faster?

by your "logic" both persons would arrive at the same time, no matter whether they walk or stand.[/img]
Look, check your drawing again. How long it will take to the traveler to walk from the back of the second wagon to the front of the first wagon?

In a traveling which last two hours the walking person has reached the front wagion in less than 5 minutes, and after that this person must have to wait for the train to arrive to the next station.

Even when he did a temporary speed faster than other passengers, the speed of the train still ruling because it is the top speed as a whole, this is to say, the train wagon has arrived on time and the persons inside are subjected to such arriving of the wagon. The person who walked temporarily "faster" than the train it has arrived at the time that the train arrived, not before and not later.

This is why I can state that it won't be any "difference" if the person stays sit or walks around inside the wagon. The speed of the wagon rules.

The same happens with the earth and the satellites, the satellites are not traveling faster than us when you use the Sun as the point of observation, (you call it "frame of reference").

With this point of observation the idea that satellites are traveling faster than "us" is found false, the satellites are traveling "with us" around the Sun, and in case a satellite escapes our gravitational pulling, its traveling will be slower than ours because they won't reach our 29km per second by themselves.

So, such "time dilatation" preached by relativists is a fake.

And again, as long as you don't prove to yourself and others the physical existence of time, the theories of Relativity are deluded imaginations only.

Did you send to NASA the questions I made in my first message?

I strongly apply for you and anyone to answer properly the questions with the correspondent back up (scientific experiments) before still defending the fantasies found in Relativity.

In other words, when you don't have the primeval fact which it shgould be an existing physical time, the consequence is that you have nothing to argue against my points.

Look at my position, I have the verifiable statement that time doesn't exist physically, with this fact alone in my hand I have already demonstrated that Relativity is nothing but nonsenses.

If you disagree with this, the only thiong required from you is to provide the evidence that time exists physically by the application of the scientific method.

As you can see, my request is very simple and it is supported 100% by the requisites established by science.

On the other hand, Relativity is not science as long as time is not proved as physically existent.
and you're clearly confined to stupidity.
are you trying to be a fucking idiot? because you're doing one of the best performances of a fucking braindead zombie i've ever seen.

anyways your statement breaks down in a large enough train.
say you have a 1 hour train ride at 60kph, and a 5km long train.
2 passengers enter into the rear wagon.
me and you.

we both know that when the train stops at the next stop, only the front wagon will fit at the trainstop.
That is a "condition" speculated for your example only, in my train the passengers can go in and out from it using the doors of each wagon.

Lets continue.

Originally Posted by dejawolf
[but me, being smart, decides to walk the 5km in the train at 5kph.
you just sit there in the rear wagon.
1 hour after, i am in the front of the train, you are in the rear.
i am in the front wagon, and can walk out of the train at the station.
whereas you are 5km back, and have to WALK FOR AN HOUR to get to the front wagon. by then, the train has already left the station since it only stops for 5 minutes at each stop,
and you'll know better than to make stupid statements on a science forum,
and then trying to prove them with bogus tests.
Amazing that the train attendant didn't call you the attention that your ticket was validated for you to travel in the last wagon and sent you back to the tail of the train, but well...

This is the funny point of your which many can't notice in your example, you arrive first than I but at the same time with the first wagon of the train...so what? This doesn't mean that "time has dilated".

Compete with the light of a flash light and run as fast as you can against a wall located across your side of the street.

The light will arrive first. So what? What is the deal?

Look, the light which arrived first before you has "died" already by the moment you arrive to the wall seconds later. You will catch up with the new light arriving from the flash light, the former light has died, finito, over, gone...

Light will be reflected or absorbed, but for sure it won't wait for you.

Or, are you expecting from that light to wait for you? To arrive first is not a synonymous of "time dilating", right?

To travel fast won't brake anything but to arrive first to another place, that's all.

Check your train example, even when you were "so smart" to walk to the front wagon while the train was traveling, you had to walk the same amount of distance that mine when I walked later in direction to the front wagon.

I am one hour late in reference to you, but in reference to the train as a whole I still am on time, as part of the travel itinerary we have arrived to the next station at the same time. Your family and my family waiting for us will say the same, that the train -with both of us- has arrived right on schedule.

No well, while you came out of the train first, that doesn't mean that you have arrived "early" than the train. The train still the rule about the moment of arrival.

The same applies to the speed of our planet orbiting around the Sun, this speed is the rule as long as you on ground and the satellites in outer space are traveling together with our planet around the Sun.

So, looking at this event from any point outside our orbit -inner or outer our orbit around the Sun- the observer will see the earth with everything on ground and its satellites traveling all together at 29km per second.
Having that the clock on ground and the clock in the satellite are actually traveling at the same speed around the Sun, where is your time dilatation?
Worst for you, lets use a satellite that is traveling around the earth passing over the poles and its orbit directed to face against and Sun all the time, so there is no chance for this satellite to be "at front and behind the earth" when our planet travels around our star. (This is to say, you don't walk from the back of the train to the front but that you keep walking from one side to the other side of the last wagon.)

What about this case? The same rule applies, the speed of our planet of 29km per second still rules. Where is your time dilatation?

Look, the satellites malfunction in outer space, this the most accurate scientific explanation for he distorted data sent by the atomic clocks installed in satellites.
Be real.

94. Originally Posted by conquer
Look, the satellites malfunction in outer space, this the most accurate scientific explanation for he distorted data sent by the atomic clocks installed in satellites.
Be real.
How do you account for the fact that the magnitude of this 'distorted data' matches that predicted by application of relativity theory? Don't you find it is stretching credulity greatly that an unpredicted malfunction of satellite technology, operating in space, should precisley match an anticpated anomaly that you discard as a delusion?

To the casual observer, please note : dejawolf is presenting the accepted understanding of the application of relativity to satellites, specifically, and the universe, in general. I cannot be certain that every small detail of his explanations is accurate, but the general tenor is correct.
Conquer is presenting an alternative view that appears to be based largely on incredulity (I don't understand it, so it can't be true) and not on evidence. Conquer, based upon this thread, appears to fall into that category of science enthusiast known as the delusional nutter.

And dejawolf, frustrating as this sort of nonsense is would you mind moderating your language. There are children watching.

95. Hey Wolf,
this is hopeless. Waste of time and energy. Someone who really does not get the most basic concepts really can and will not be able to change his oppinion. Rather those people come up with ye olden arguments against Relativity, like the delirious experiments by Hasenöhrl that state that a "light-filled" vessel resists acceleration more than one containing just vaccum. BTW, this guy also was a firm believer of the "Ether" theory which was torn to shreds by Michelson.
And I mean.....someone who states time is nonexistent.......
But here's some funny thing for conquer: You say time does not exist (or the existance can not be proven), and most of the effects can be explained by gravity. Prove that gravity exists! Show me a measurement device that can measure gravity or show me mathematical proof of gravity.

Have fun.

Oh, and BTW.........I can of course not accept the: "I see and feel it every day" common sense argument. This is not proof, that's empirism.

96. Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
......the "Ether" theory which was torn to shreds by Michelson.
That is a questionable take on the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. a) Were there not inconsistencies in the instrumentation/methodology of the experiment? While it has subesequently been validated by other experiments, the original one may have been flawed. I may be misremembering things here, but this is my recollection.
b) There are alternative, though not popular explanations for the results of the experiment. Again, I stand ready to be corrected on this, since I am working from a half-remembered shadow of a flimsy recollection.

97. from what i remember, the certainty of relativity being right with the latest experiment, was around 99.9999%, or something to that order.

98. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by conquer
Look, the satellites malfunction in outer space, this the most accurate scientific explanation for he distorted data sent by the atomic clocks installed in satellites.
Be real.
How do you account for the fact that the magnitude of this 'distorted data' matches that predicted by application of relativity theory? Don't you find it is stretching credulity greatly that an unpredicted malfunction of satellite technology, operating in space, should precisley match an anticpated anomaly that you discard as a delusion?
You must understand that the so called "predicted by application of relativity" is no more than mathematical adjusments made to fit what is observed.

Several years ago Le Verrier predicted mathemayically with the same accuracy of Relativity about the periphelion of Mercury.

Le Verrier used the possible existence of a twin planet orbiting the same path of Mercury. Even more, some astronomers thought that they indeed had observed such planet and they named it Vulcano.

The moment of truth came when others decided finally to check if such planet really existed. So, several astronomers worked hard to find such a planet which caused the weird orbit of Mercury. As we already know, no one found it and the calculations of Le Verrier which were as accurate as the calculations of Relativity were discarded...because such twin planet does not exist.

What about the calculations of Relativity? Relativity also is adding a factor which doesn't exist in reality as a physical entity.

Even when the calculations of Relativity appear to be very accurate with Mercury, such accuracy fails miserably with Mars, Venus, Earth, Jupiter...you name it.

So, we have the scenario that when you add mathematically some factors to the calculations in your piece of paper you can obtain the desired results, this is a like the play game that some mathematicians use to trick people. You add the strategic factor and you win. A teacher of mine used to play the game of writing the result in a piece of paper and a pupil kept it in his desk. After asking other to add "any number" after his amounts, the result of the sum was the same of his prediction. Even more, he used to predict square roots of any number in one or two seconds without going by steps, he showed us later his notes and how these tricks can be made. This is to say, you are a good mathematician and you can manipulate results by adding factors to the operations.

With Relativity we have the same scenario that others had with Le Verrier's calculations, time doesn't exist physically...with Le Verrier, the planet Vulvcano didn't exist physically.

So, mathematically you can explain anything just by adding mathematical factors to the mathematical operation, but, for example, when I presented above how ridiculous was the explanation given by relativists about the "mechanism" which caused the muons to appear to last longer after being exposed to high speeds...until today, no one has come with a reasonable explication of such mechanism.

Everybody want to lean of the mathematical results, nobody wants to face the reality that science is not explained by mathematics alone but that mathematics is only a tool used to back up the mechanisms.

Relativity has not a single mechanism to explain what is going on with the muon and neither with the atomic clocks, nothing real to back up the claims...but numbers in pieces of paper.

Again, knowing by fact that time doesn't exist physically, how do you support the idea that time dilates? Show the mechanism which proves such idea of yours.

99. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
To the casual observer, please note : dejawolf is presenting the accepted understanding of the application of relativity to satellites, specifically, and the universe, in general. I cannot be certain that every small detail of his explanations is accurate, but the general tenor is correct.
Conquer is presenting an alternative view that appears to be based largely on incredulity (I don't understand it, so it can't be true) and not on evidence. Conquer, based upon this thread, appears to fall into that category of science enthusiast known as the delusional nutter.

And dejawolf, frustrating as this sort of nonsense is would you mind moderating your language. There are children watching.
Accepted understanding by whom? Only relativists accept such understanding, look and search the web, lots of people and organizations of scientists do not agree with Relativity at all.

If Relativity is correct and time does exist physically, why NASA won't respond to you, me or any other person the questions given in my first mesage?

Didn't you get it yet? Your legs have been pulled!

Lets see who is the one that is not understanding what is going on here.

Lets see who is the one that is enjoying the "evidence" in this topic:

Relativity claims that time physically dilates because the speed of objects. Well, you must show the status of time "before" such event, tell me, is time flowing? How do you know it does?

You say that you understand Relativity, well, please provide your understanding about it with the proper factual evidence, give us the instruments used to detect your assumed physical passage of time. After that show us how time stars to slow by the speed of objects.

At this time you don't need any mathematical calculation, you only need to show the instruments which are currently detecting the physical passage of time.

I will make clear that clocks do not mesure any physical passage of time.

Clocks are calibrated devices which functional work is to make tic tic tic at standard intervals.

Lets us the anemometer as an example to show a device which measure the passage of something real. The anemometer detects the passage of winds, This machine will tell you when the winds speed up or slow down because this device has a sensor.
Clocks do not have any sensor to detect any physical passage of time, so, when clocks slow or go faster is because clocks are malfunctioning.

So, calculations alone are not accepted by the scientific method to support the veracity of a theory.

Factual evidence is the requisite which must be fulfilled if you want Relativity to be taken seriously.

Until you come back with the required evidence asked right above, we can be 100% sure that Relativity was, is and will be no more than deluded imaginations.

100. Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
Hey Wolf,
this is hopeless. Waste of time and energy. Someone who really does not get the most basic concepts really can and will not be able to change his oppinion. Rather those people come up with ye olden arguments against Relativity, like the delirious experiments by Hasenöhrl that state that a "light-filled" vessel resists acceleration more than one containing just vaccum. BTW, this guy also was a firm believer of the "Ether" theory which was torn to shreds by Michelson.
And I mean.....someone who states time is nonexistent.......
So, for you time exists physically.

You will have no problem then to give us here the instruments used to detect it.

But here's some funny thing for conquer: You say time does not exist (or the existance can not be proven), and most of the effects can be explained by gravity. Prove that gravity exists! Show me a measurement device that can measure gravity or show me mathematical proof of gravity.
s

Gravity is a physically existing force. You can measure it by checking the mass of bodies and seeing the effects of the pulling force between them. Look at the Moon and the Earth, or the stars in a galaxy, or you in relation with the earth.

The mass of the Moon is lesser than the mass of earth, the pulling force is less as well. The astronauts in the Moon proved it some decades ago. The measurement of the pulling force depending on the mass of bodies was validated.

You can "feel" the physical existence of such force and that it's true, I invite you to jump hard and come out of our planet doing so.

Can you?

Then, you can feel that a force is pulling you to ground. You feel it, you experience it. you can even measure the pulling force by the mass of bodies, you can see how in the past the passing of comets was predicted by calculating not only the traveling path of the comet but also the pulling force of the planets near to their path.

So, if this force doesn't exist you should be free to fly away and walk no more.

Sorry, but this force called Gravity won't allow you to challenge its power.

Have fun.

Oh, and BTW.........I can of course not accept the: "I see and feel it every day" common sense argument. This is not proof, that's empirism.
The principles of science ARE empirical. Theory is secundary.

This is why science divorced from philosophy: because science claimed for evidence. Science without evidence is anything but science.

Without primeval facts your theories suck.

You need facts in order to start a theory.

How facts or experimental data are obtained? By observing the universe, by testing, by perceiving.

Lets show the contrary of my statements: an idiot comes here and say that time dilates.

Well, that is his idea. You might ask, "well, you say that time dilates, tell me first, what is time? A force? An Object? An energy? What is time? Define it.

After you explain the best you can about what is time, show the tests and experiments made to prove its physical existence.

After you have performed the tests and experiments showing the physical existence of time, show how speed of an object causes its dilatation.

I guess that you Twaaannnggg won't believe to this idiot that time dilates just because he says so.

You know that science requires some essential steps to be followed before the acceptance of the claims of such an idiot.

You know that the proper instruments must be used to verify the certainty of the claims of the idiot.

So, my dear Twaaannnggg, are you expecting for others to believe in relativity because this philosophy appears to be science?

By no means.

No one claims that Gravity "is affected" because a spaceship goes to outer space, such it should be crap. don't you think so?

Then, how in the world the idiot states that time is affected by the speed of objects?

How long it will take for you Twaaannnggg to accept reality and underastand that by its own speed around the affected one is the object?

101. Originally Posted by dejawolf
from what i remember, the certainty of relativity being right with the latest experiment, was around 99.9999%, or something to that order.

_____________

only a fool puts art above science.
Known fools:

Hawking: The Universe in a Nutshell

Actually he didn't use valuable art but lots of caricatures in his book.

J.R. Gott Time Travel In Einstein's Universe.

He starts making good propaganda of movies like "back to the Future" and fiction books like "The time Machine" in order to show "how real Relativity is". The graphics about the passing of time are laughable, art works from other dudes which belong to his ethnic group are irrelevant for this kind of book which is assumed to belong to science.

Funny, this dude claims that Relativity was invented by Einstein thanks to the book mentioned above "The Time Machine".

More funnier, this dude also claims that astronauts are currently experiencing the effects of "aging a little less than the reast of us". Of course, I cannot ask for the evidence which support such a crap because Twaaannnggg will say that asking for scientific evidence is empirism.

(He might mean "empiriscism.)

Astronauts standing almost a year in outer space have returned with grave health problems. The bones of a 40 years old astronaut returned as of if they belong to a 70 years old man. Osteoporosis is one of the greater health problems in astronauts. Their defenses decreased a lot, their production of red cells was reduced in alarmanting levels, they suffered of disc deformations in their back, the suffer of disorientation, they had to be carried in wheel chairs to the recovery rooms. They had to stay in recovery for up to two years!

How in the world the nuts of Gott claims that astronauts "experience the effect of aging a little less than the rest of us"?

What is the universe where relativists live in? Who still calling the deluded imaginations of Relativity as "science"?

A review of the Twin Paradox by analyzing the words of Feynman in his easy on Relativity will show us the incredible idiocy found in the statements of the supporters of Relativity.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement