Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[patrick jane]

Let’s dive deeper into the true nature of matter and mass by exploring Einstein’s photon clock thought experiment, and the phenomenon that is time dilation:

When Time Breaks Down

​

Elementary

 

[Stripe]

Let’s dive deeper into the true nature of matter and mass by exploring Einstein’s photon clock thought experiment, and the phenomenon that is time dilation:

Or we could eschew the question-begging nonsense and work through the basis of the proof behind Einstein's ideas.

 

[gcthomas]

Or we could eschew the question-begging nonsense and work through the basis of the proof behind Einstein's ideas.

The basis of the "proof" (odd word for a self-proclaimed scientist to use, no?) of Einstein's work is the wealth of experimental evidence. Are you sure you want to wade through all of that?

 

[Stripe]

The basis of the "proof" (odd word for a self-proclaimed scientist to use, no?) of Einstein's work is the wealth of experimental evidence.

Your ignorance is showing.

Are you sure you want to wade through all of that?

Sure. I think I'm well-versed on the subject. However, you don't seem to know what a proof is or even the nature of Einstein's work.

So perhaps you should do your homework before sticking your neck out. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

Your ignorance is showing.

Sure. I think I'm well-versed on the subject. However, you don't seem to know what a proof is or even the nature of Einstein's work.

So perhaps you should do your homework before sticking your neck out. :up:

[irony]Please, educate me O knowledgeable and well versed one - explain to your ever-so-humble student what role "proof" has in physics?[/irony]

 

[Stripe]

[irony]Please, educate me O knowledgeable and well versed one - explain to your ever-so-humble student what role "proof" has in physics?[/irony]

:chuckle:

When I describe to you the correct use of the word proof in a scientific context, will you admit that your response to my post of the "basis of the proof behind Einstein's ideas" was correctly worded?

 

[gcthomas]

:chuckle:

When I describe to you the correct use of the word proof in a scientific context, will you admit that your response to my post of the "basis of the proof behind Einstein's ideas" was correctly worded?

You want me to respond to your answer before you have given it? You sure do have a funny way of having a conversation.

 

[Stripe]

You want me to respond to your answer before you have given it? You sure do have a funny way of having a conversation.

I thought that after a gentle prod you would remember that "proof" has legitimate scientific use.

Perhaps you are ignorant. :idunno:

 

[gcthomas]

If by 'proof' you mean 'derivation' of Einstein's work, then you're using the wrong word. If 'confirmation' of his theories by experiment then you are confused beyond recovery.

Why are you unable to answer a simple question?

 

[Stripe]

If by 'proof' you mean 'derivation' of Einstein's work, then you're using the wrong word.

:chuckle:

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?

My comment is perfectly simple: We could work through the basis of the proof behind Einstein's ideas.

This exposes two things:
1. Einstein has ideas, namely relativity theory.
2. His theory is based upon a proof.

If 'confirmation' of his theories by experiment then you are confused beyond recovery.

Science, remember? You're making exactly the mistake you wrongly accused me of making — which is common among evolutionists.

Scientists do not "confirm" theories; they can only ever falsify them.

They can confirm predictions, but you don't seem to like that either. :chuckle:

Why are you unable to answer a simple question?

You've shown far too much ignorance on the topic to make it worthwhile engaging on anything but the fundamentals. When you get the terminology right, then we can talk. :thumb:

 

[gcthomas]

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?you don't seem to like that either. :chuckle:

<<'TripeBot auto-response #2>>

..again. :yawn:

They can confirm predictions, but you don't seem to like that either. :chuckle:

In that thread you said "To be fair, the prediction has not been confirmed yet."

Didn't you read your own comments in the thread you are referencing? :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

:darwinsm: English is your second language, isn't it?

:mock: gc

 

[chrysostom]

time is man made

 

[Stripe]

It seems GC is a lost cause. Perhaps someone else has the capacity to work through the proof behind Einstein's ideas.

 

[gcthomas]

:darwinsm: English is your second language, isn't it?

<<'TripeBot auto-response #6>>

Still not worked out how proof and confirm are used by real scientists? Poor old deluded Stripe. (I can do a 'let me Google that for you' link if you are struggling to operate the Web.


(How's your bout of Dunning Kruger responding to treatment?)

 

[Stripe]

E≈mc²

 

[gcthomas]

E=mc² + 1/2 mv² + O(4) +...

... as derived from a binomial expansion of the relativistic energy momentum equation.

 

[Stripe]

E=mc² + 1/2 mv² + O(4) +...

... as derived from a binomial expansion of the relativistic energy momentum equation.

Mmm hmm.

 

[User Name]

Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

"A team of physicists who can now count themselves as astronomers announced on Thursday that they had heard and recorded the sound of two black holes colliding a billion light-years away, a fleeting chirp that fulfilled the last prophecy of Einstein’s general theory of relativity."

 

[gcthomas]

Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

"A team of physicists who can now count themselves as astronomers announced on Thursday that they had heard and recorded the sound of two black holes colliding a billion light-years away, a fleeting chirp that fulfilled the last prophecy of Einstein’s general theory of relativity."

Now why didn't Enyart and Brown predict the exact frequency sweep of the gravitational waves? Maybe relativity is right all along ... :think: