User Tag List

Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 3340414243
Results 631 to 636 of 636

Thread: about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

  1. #631
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,118
    Thanks
    400
    Thanked 11,718 Times in 8,392 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147838
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePhy View Post
    In what coordinate system do you claim the orbits will differ?
    Pretend you're standing on the sun.
    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.

  2. #632
    Trainee
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I am a bit reluctant to post, as I have not read the complete thread.

    Of relativity, clocks and problems:

    So it all started with Galileo, he first thought of relativity. It kind of goes like this: I am on a ship that relative towards the shore travel at certain speed lets say 5knots in one direction, and there is another ship that goes in the opposite direction also with the speed 5 knots. Both ships are on the same line (ie they will crash).

    Galileo claimed, that if you are standing on the first ship, you can consider yourself standing still and the other ship crashing into you with the speed of 10 knots. Interestingly someone on the second ship can claim he is standing still and it is you who crashed into them with 10knots. Both are considered right in their claims, the observation systems are different.

    Most people today accept this relativity and even take it for granted and even trivial.

    There is one problem though. No matter how fast we move compared to a source of light, the speed of the light is the same. This we measure. There was no good theory that would explain that until the (special) theory of relativity.

    So its not that we have observed some clocks to be slower than others, its that we have observed that light has the same speed, even if we are traveling with aprox 0.1% of the speed of light (30km/s) towards the source of the light. I would be extremely interested if anyone would try to explain why that is without using theory of relativity.




    Some other random thoughts:
    - each object (ie earth) has geostationary orbit, it is dependent on the objects mass and rotation, but until the mass of the satellite is comparably small not on the mass of its satellite
    - if moon (moon is not in geostationary orbit) was switched with an apple there would be a change. Moon-Earth system circles around barycenter some 5000km from the center of Earth (= 1000km bellow surface), Apple-Earth system would circle almost at the exact centre of the earth. This difference of 5000km is rather small compared to the earth moon distance.

  3. #633
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,384 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147882
    Quote Originally Posted by smalcat View Post
    I am a bit reluctant to post, as I have not read the complete thread.

    Of relativity, clocks and problems:

    So it all started with Galileo, he first thought of relativity. It kind of goes like this: I am on a ship that relative towards the shore travel at certain speed lets say 5knots in one direction, and there is another ship that goes in the opposite direction also with the speed 5 knots. Both ships are on the same line (ie they will crash).

    Galileo claimed, that if you are standing on the first ship, you can consider yourself standing still and the other ship crashing into you with the speed of 10 knots. Interestingly someone on the second ship can claim he is standing still and it is you who crashed into them with 10knots. Both are considered right in their claims, the observation systems are different.

    Most people today accept this relativity and even take it for granted and even trivial.

    There is one problem though. No matter how fast we move compared to a source of light, the speed of the light is the same. This we measure. There was no good theory that would explain that until the (special) theory of relativity.

    So its not that we have observed some clocks to be slower than others, its that we have observed that light has the same speed, even if we are traveling with aprox 0.1% of the speed of light (30km/s) towards the source of the light. I would be extremely interested if anyone would try to explain why that is without using theory of relativity.




    Some other random thoughts:
    - each object (ie earth) has geostationary orbit, it is dependent on the objects mass and rotation, but until the mass of the satellite is comparably small not on the mass of its satellite
    - if moon (moon is not in geostationary orbit) was switched with an apple there would be a change. Moon-Earth system circles around barycenter some 5000km from the center of Earth (= 1000km bellow surface), Apple-Earth system would circle almost at the exact centre of the earth. This difference of 5000km is rather small compared to the earth moon distance.
    You have already demonstrated that what we observe is wrong.


  4. #634
    Trainee
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Well its true we live in a more miraculous world than we perceive, so for sure we are probably observing faulty. However, there is something peculiar about light.

    The special theory of relativity is quite nice though. It for example predicts a different universe for different entities. An example: for light in this universe all the distances are 0. On the other hand, time spans into infinity. With other words for light everything is here and everything is eternal.

    Physics kinda dont like this implication of the theory, which is rather strange as in other cases they are not above division by zero and other no-no mathemathical things.

    So why do you believe we are observing it wrong?

  5. #635
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,384 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147882
    Quote Originally Posted by smalcat View Post
    Well its true we live in a more miraculous world than we perceive, so for sure we are probably observing faulty. However, there is something peculiar about light.

    The special theory of relativity is quite nice though. It for example predicts a different universe for different entities. An example: for light in this universe all the distances are 0. On the other hand, time spans into infinity. With other words for light everything is here and everything is eternal.

    Physics kinda dont like this implication of the theory, which is rather strange as in other cases they are not above division by zero and other no-no mathemathical things.

    So why do you believe we are observing it wrong?
    For the very reason you posted about how it's observed speed never changes in relation to other objects, regardless of the other object's speed.


  6. #636
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,118
    Thanks
    400
    Thanked 11,718 Times in 8,392 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147838
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    There is no practical difference between assuming gravity affects space and assuming gravity affects the instruments that measure space.
    Simple, yet profound.

    If only the Darwinists would stop venting and think. Do they really care that much if there might be a better model out there than relativity?
    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.

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