User Tag List

Page 53 of 57 FirstFirst ... 34350515253545556 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 795 of 849

Thread: Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

  1. #781
    Over 1500 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,765
    Thanks
    290
    Thanked 267 Times in 191 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    151081
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Great job missing his point.
    Great job missing my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    You cared enough to make a comment about it, so you're lying when you say no one cares.

  2. #782
    Over 3000 post club gcthomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,986
    Thanks
    492
    Thanked 842 Times in 567 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    436232
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    It is a tenuous thing, when Christians do this. Our faith is so powerful, that cosmology can't compete, like holding a match next to the sun, and focusing on the matchlight. It's also a terrible thing, because such a view, that "supports" the Christian faith with science (the best science can do is confirm that HE IS RISEN, and anything that points to this), ties and binds the Christian who believes it, limiting their Christian love.

    Of course, it could just be that it keeps us humble when we have such biases and cognitive errors, because otherwise we might become too full of ourselves.
    Thanks Nihilo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    If the galaxies all had a net negative charge, enough that it'd repel them all away from each other, would they accelerate, or decelerate as they're avoiding each other, due to them all having net negative charge? (If that question even makes sense. )
    That's a perfectly sensible question, and the idea explains the acceleration of the galaxies. Unfortunately, the repulsion would be strongest for close galaxies, yet we see that they happily orbit each other due to gravity, so your idea can't be the answer. And in the past, there was no acceleration, only deceleration, so the same problem exists then too.

    The difficulty for the interested amateur is that there are an awful lot of very clever young scientists thinking about all these things, and these apparently nice seeming alternatives to the status quo have already been fully considered and modelled and tested and rejected before it had occurred to anyone on this forum. So I come across as a dogmatic nay-sayer, even though I try to explain exactly where the ideas don't match observations of reality. But that is why I joined this forum, to show the wonders of science in all its glory to those who may be influenced by all the ill advised rejections by some of the more determinedly misleading posters. Science doens't need protecting, but there plenty of people who would appreciate an authoritative description of the science without all those little and large distortions that pass as debate around here.

    We wunt be druv.

    Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

  3. #783
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,296
    Thanks
    118
    Thanked 7,687 Times in 6,044 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147793
    Quote Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
    That's a perfectly sensible question.


    Are you serious? You think a pair of galaxies would respond to each other due to their electrical charges? You think this would overcome gravity?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 23rd, 2017)

  5. #784
    Over 3000 post club gcthomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,986
    Thanks
    492
    Thanked 842 Times in 567 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    436232
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post


    Are you serious? You think a pair of galaxies would respond to each other due to their electrical charges? You think this would overcome gravity?
    The electrostatic forces have an infinite range, and would influence motion even in the presence of gravity. So it is a sensible question if it is not clear how much charge there is or the possible side effects.

    And of course, as you would know if you read the answer, the side effects rule out electrostatics in this case.

    ('Overcome gravity' is an interesting phrase to hear when I am diagnosing physics concept misconceptions in my professional capacity. Would you like to know why?)
    We wunt be druv.

    Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

  6. #785
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,981
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked 2,873 Times in 1,879 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2105494
    Quote Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
    Despite you calling me a moron in the earlier post, and this..


    I responded carefully and considerately and in some detail. Your response was to discuss what was raised? Thank me for my attempts to explain? Well, no:



    Great. What a grown up response when I answered one of your two questions with care. The other, a demand that I do your research for you and find the experiments you should have found yourself if you had researched the topic enough to claim to understand the universe better than Einstein did, I declined. You should be able to find them for yourself — I am not going to teach you all the Physics and history of science you ought to know.

    Then this:


    What is this? It is not a discussion point from any grown ups I know. Last chance demands? Sheesh.. I wonder what will come next. A rational rebuttal to the point made? Nope …



    No, sadly. More attempts at personal insults and another threat. Funnily, you have told me several times you wouldn't respond, but you couldn't help yourself. Never mind.

    In any case, I know from experience that when you engage people who also hold other crank science ideas that they will never listen to what is said and never accept that they are misrepresenting the science they criticise. No, I am just pointing out to anyone reading that Enyart's acceptance of crank ideas to further his own religious positions (as he claimed himself) does not represent any great intellectual insight, but rather a desperate rearguard action to prevent science undermining things he holds strongly as a matter of faith. Sad, really. That you only have Stripe on your side says much.

    Bye bye! I will continue to critique your funny attempts to bring down relativity, or gravitational theory or whatever. But I won't hold out for rational responses from you. Feel free to ignore me, it will save me from having to wade past the juvenile insults to try to find the morsels worth addressing.
    Your choice is final. Welcome to my ignore list. You've deserved to be there for a while.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 13th, 2017),Tambora (September 23rd, 2017)

  8. #786
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,981
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked 2,873 Times in 1,879 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2105494
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    If the galaxies all had a net negative charge, enough that it'd repel them all away from each other, would they accelerate, or decelerate as they're avoiding each other, due to them all having net negative charge? (If that question even makes sense. )

    They would accelerate but I know of no one that even suggests that galaxies have a net negative charge. Certain not such that they would repel each other like so many magnets. Do you?
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 23rd, 2017)

  10. #787
    Over 3000 post club gcthomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,986
    Thanks
    492
    Thanked 842 Times in 567 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    436232
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    They would accelerate but I know of no one that even suggests that galaxies have a net negative charge. Certain not such that they would repel each other like so many magnets. Do you?
    Except for you, Clete, with your support for the electromagnetic theory of gravity. How did you think it was supposed to work? It is a crank theory and you do yourself no favours by associating with it.
    We wunt be druv.

    Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

  11. #788
    Over 3000 post club gcthomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,986
    Thanks
    492
    Thanked 842 Times in 567 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    436232
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Your choice is final. Welcome to my ignore list. You've deserved to be there for a while.
    I've wanted to be there for a while, and you said you'd do it weeks ago. I'll no longer have to deal with your petty insults and 5th grade scientific reasoning. (See what I did there? )
    We wunt be druv.

    Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to gcthomas For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (September 13th, 2017)

  13. #789
    Silver Member JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    3,719
    Thanks
    7,456
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,492 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    539042
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Your choice is final. Welcome to my ignore list. You've deserved to be there for a while.
    Now that he's on your ignore list, perhaps you could help me out in a few other threads? I'll PM you the links if you're interested.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 23rd, 2017)

  15. #790
    Over 4000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    4,916
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,168 Times in 949 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    249920
    Quote Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
    The electrostatic forces have an infinite range, and would influence motion even in the presence of gravity. So it is a sensible question if it is not clear how much charge there is or the possible side effects.

    And of course, as you would know if you read the answer, the side effects rule out electrostatics in this case.

    ('Overcome gravity' is an interesting phrase to hear when I am diagnosing physics concept misconceptions in my professional capacity. Would you like to know why?)
    I see that the relative masses of protons and neutrons (baryons) to electrons is about 1800-to-1. On a mass basis, how much surplus or excess electrons would two neighboring galaxies require, in order to possess a net negative charge sufficient enough to violate their expected behavior wrt each other, based only on gravity?

    In other words, in a strictly hypothetical object exclusively composed of only atomic mass (baryons and leptons), of 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with a net zero charge, the mass relation between baryons and electrons is about 3000-to-1, so only 1/3000th of the mass of the object is electrons. What mass of the object would be required to manifest an effect contrary to what we would expect, if the only force in play is gravity, in just electrons?

    I'm asking because I don't think it would be very much, on a mass basis.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  16. #791
    Over 4000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    4,916
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,168 Times in 949 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    249920
    Quote Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
    Thanks Nihilo.



    That's a perfectly sensible question, and the idea explains the acceleration of the galaxies. Unfortunately, the repulsion would be strongest for close galaxies, yet we see that they happily orbit each other due to gravity, so your idea can't be the answer.
    What if then, instead of all galaxies possessing a uniform net negative charge, different galaxies have different net charges? Therefore, the galaxies that happen to be closest to each other, and do not repel each other, happen to possess lower-magnitude net negative charges than those farther away, off by themselves?

    My instinct tells me that I'm missing something in the question, but I'm OK being wrong in public. On an anonymous internet discussion board.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  17. #792
    Over 4000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    4,916
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,168 Times in 949 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    249920
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    They would accelerate but I know of no one that even suggests that galaxies have a net negative charge. [Certainly] not such that they would repel each other like so many magnets. Do you?
    I don't, but that's why I'm asking about the notion. You're the one who mentioned electromagnetism, so you planted this seed.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  18. #793
    Over 3000 post club gcthomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,986
    Thanks
    492
    Thanked 842 Times in 567 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    436232
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    What if then, instead of all galaxies possessing a uniform net negative charge, different galaxies have different net charges? Therefore, the galaxies that happen to be closest to each other, and do not repel each other, happen to possess lower-magnitude net negative charges than those farther away, off by themselves?
    There is a problem of the self repelling nature of those electric charges: how would the galaxy form if the charge could overwhelm the attractive nature of gravity. Offhand, the quantity would be of the order of the mass of the galaxy reduced by the extra strength of the force of the electric charge, as you have guessed. But an electric charge would affect the motion of constituent parts of the galaxy, which would be clearly visible in telescopes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    My instinct tells me that I'm missing something in the question, but I'm OK being wrong in public. On an anonymous internet discussion board.
    Being wrong in public is good for the soul (if not your reputation ). But I post under my real name. Well, as initials.
    We wunt be druv.

    Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

  19. #794
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,296
    Thanks
    118
    Thanked 7,687 Times in 6,044 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147793
    Quote Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
    The electrostatic forces have an infinite range, and would influence motion even in the presence of gravity. So it is a sensible question if it is not clear how much charge there is or the possible side effects.
    Sounds unlikely.

    And of course, as you would know if you read the answer, the side effects rule out electrostatics in this case.
    The answer to the question I just asked?

    'Overcome gravity' is an interesting phrase.
    That's nice. Should I have said "overwhelm"?

    Would you like to know why?)
    How about you answer one of the on-topic questions I've asked.

    How do you establish relativity? Have you even read Einstein's paper that claims to do so?

    Quote Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
    There is a problem of the self repelling nature of those electric charges: how would the galaxy form if the charge could overwhelm the attractive nature of gravity. Offhand, the quantity would be of the order of the mass of the galaxy reduced by the extra strength of the force of the electric charge, as you have guessed. But an electric charge would affect the motion of constituent parts of the galaxy, which would be clearly visible in telescopes.

    Being wrong in public is good for the soul (if not your reputation ). But I post under my real name. Well, as initials.




    Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 23rd, 2017)

  21. #795
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,981
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked 2,873 Times in 1,879 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2105494
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Now that he's on your ignore list, perhaps you could help me out in a few other threads? I'll PM you the links if you're interested.
    OK
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 23rd, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us