Scientists like "cool" as much as anyone else. But "cool" is not a scientific reason to do something. And a human personally experiencing something does not give a scientific advantage.
about Bob's article on absolute or relative time
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Scientists like "cool" as much as anyone else. But "cool" is not a scientific reason to do something. And a human personally experiencing something does not give a scientific advantage.
I'll bet a lot of scientists think of creative ways to pitch an idea when they know the real reason they want to do it is because it's cool.
Depends on what they are experiencing.
Objects can certainly move at higher velocities much easier in lower fields of gravity. So the g forces would not be as strong, obviously. But higher gravity works in the opposite manner, although I'm certain that didn't need to be said.
please explain what you mean. maybe bring an example.
Change the word "move" to "accelerate."
As for the rest, do you not know what the "g" in "g force" stands for?
Flipper
New member
Well, this is not technically true (depending on what direction you want to travel), although I think I know what you mean.
But if that were true, NASA would spend a lot of time and money trying to figure out how to avoid the gravity wells of other planets, rather than making use of them to accelerate their planetary probes to higher speeds. This significantly shortens mission times and means the probe can travel further, faster and with less fuel requirements.
Also, it would theoretically be the case that you would be traveling at infinite velocities as you approached the singularity of a black hole. Admittedly, you'd reach these high velocities in the form of a shower of frame-extended particles.
Dang, the atheists love bringing up any inane side-track in order to miss the point!
The point, Flipper, is that any practical test upon two entities is going to require one of them to undergo serious acceleration and then the same amount of deceleration.
That acceleration and deceleration is going to add up to a vastly different gravitational environment for one of the entities. This difference must be catered for in any ideas used to explain the observations.
Of course higher gravity would pull on an object, helping to accelerate or propel it. But in order to stay in motion the gravity well must be escaped.
Read the link in post 526.
No.
And that about sums it up.
Cool article that noguru pointed to.
"The simplest way to understand all this "without going crazy," Van Flandern says, is to discard Einsteinian relativity and to assume that "there is a light-carrying medium." When a clock moves through this medium "it takes longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit." Therefore it makes fewer "ticks" in a given time than a stationary clock. Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are "ploughing through this medium and working more slowly." It's not time that slows down. It's the clocks. All the experiments that supposedly "confirm" special relativity do so because all have been conducted in laboratories on the Earth's surface, where every single moving particle, or moving atomic clock, is in fact "ploughing through" the Earth's gravitational field, and therefore slowing down.
Both theories, Einsteinian and local field, would yield the same results"
"The simplest way to understand all this "without going crazy," Van Flandern says, is to discard Einsteinian relativity and to assume that "there is a light-carrying medium." When a clock moves through this medium "it takes longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit." Therefore it makes fewer "ticks" in a given time than a stationary clock. Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are "ploughing through this medium and working more slowly." It's not time that slows down. It's the clocks. All the experiments that supposedly "confirm" special relativity do so because all have been conducted in laboratories on the Earth's surface, where every single moving particle, or moving atomic clock, is in fact "ploughing through" the Earth's gravitational field, and therefore slowing down.
Both theories, Einsteinian and local field, would yield the same results"
Memento Mori
New member
Even Einstein described space-time as aether. Of course, he meant it to be far different from the actual theory of aether.
OK .. I got a good chuckle out of this. Phy has slowly but surely come around to my way of thinking. This thread was Phy (and others) trying to defend the notion that time can be stretched as if it were a physical thing. When you start suggesting weird, magical things that nobody can see those ideas will creep into normal conversations. Phy, you really should have known better :chuckle:
Phy thinks an apple would follow the same orbit as our moon given the same location and velocity.
Stripe disagrees.
Phy demonstrates some knowledge of the physics required to answer the question.
Stripe still disagrees.
Phy mocks Stripe's lack of physics training.
Stripe tries to express his limited understanding of the physics.
Phy starts to reconsider his position and looks to soften the blow of possibly being shown up without admitting an error.
Phy re-asserts his incorrect conclusion.
Stripe asks a pertinent question.
Stripe provides the answer to the question and Phy is shown wrong.
Phy manages one last response before seeing the writing on the wall (in the link) and strangely vanishes for a few months, until...
... he returns in a biology thread with some attempt to show Stripe up. To which Stripe asks that Phy return to this thread...
...where he tries to make it look like this is his only response.
:chuckle:
Pretty funny stuff, Phy. Why could you not just say you were wrong?
Phy thinks an apple would follow the same orbit as our moon given the same location and velocity.
Stripe disagrees.
Phy demonstrates some knowledge of the physics required to answer the question.
Stripe still disagrees.
Phy mocks Stripe's lack of physics training.
Stripe tries to express his limited understanding of the physics.
Phy starts to reconsider his position and looks to soften the blow of possibly being shown up without admitting an error.
Phy re-asserts his incorrect conclusion.
Stripe asks a pertinent question.
Stripe provides the answer to the question and Phy is shown wrong.
Phy manages one last response before seeing the writing on the wall (in the link) and strangely vanishes for a few months, until...
... he returns in a biology thread with some attempt to show Stripe up. To which Stripe asks that Phy return to this thread...
...where he tries to make it look like this is his only response.
:chuckle:
Pretty funny stuff, Phy. Why could you not just say you were wrong?
Memento Mori
New member
Stripe talks about himself in the third person.
MoMo thinks Stripe is even crazier...
Also, always good to see a thread rise from the grave... Especially when it's you arguing with science, Stripe.
MoMo thinks Stripe is even crazier...
Also, always good to see a thread rise from the grave... Especially when it's you arguing with science, Stripe.
There is nothing in this thread that says I agree with you on time passing at a constant rate. The posts you extracted above certainly don’t, since they are based on using Newtonian physics. They aren’t even dealing with the effects of time dilation.
It has been interesting watching you point me to this thread over and over, like a dog salivating as he digs where he thinks a bone might be buried.
Wrong about what? Time dilation? Or orbital physics?Pretty funny stuff, Phy. Why could you not just say you were wrong?
As I mentioned in the other thread, communicating with you usually just provides you with fodder for the mockery you revel in. Your post above is a sterling example. I will continue to monitor various threads, but generally I choose not to respond to posts made by you, since they evidence a strong unwillingness to accept contrary data. Other posters, asking similar questions about science I may engage, if it appears they are receptive to ideas differing with their theological biases.
I wouldn’t pretend to be able to provide a simplistic definition that would settle all the arguments that were raised in this thread. To be truthful, I really should take some time to read all the thread carefully and see if there are points raised that were in error, or points missed that might have helped clarify things.
With that caveat, let me start by saying that that time is the interval between events. Or at a more fundamental level it is a coordinate that must be specified in addition to the normal 3 coordinates of space to completely specify an event.
I don't care about the rest of the thread. I've not read it either.
Does time exist ontologically or only within a thinking mind? That is, is time an actual thing or an idea?
Based on your answer above it would seem you think it to be the latter, an idea. You said, in so many words, that it is the duration of (or between) events and that it is a mathematical construct, both of which plant it firmly in the category of an abstraction rather than an actual thing. Would you agree with that?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Does time exist ontologically or only within a thinking mind? That is, is time an actual thing or an idea?
Based on your answer above it would seem you think it to be the latter, an idea. You said, in so many words, that it is the duration of (or between) events and that it is a mathematical construct, both of which plant it firmly in the category of an abstraction rather than an actual thing. Would you agree with that?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Funny, that. :chuckle:
Wrong about what we were talking about and what I quoted.
So . .you were wrong and it's my fault. Gotcha. :thumb: