Ding! Ding! Ding!
Printable View
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Jerm just shut up you are like 12 years old and you are wrong man. How many different things do i have to show you. Time is not stable for the LAST TIME. Maybe you cant grasp the idea. Time is about as stable as ur weight.
[QUOTE=Jerm]It is not a fact. There's a reason why it is called the [B]relativity theory[/B], it hasn't been proven to be a fact of life. How do you even prove that time is dependent on the relative speeds of the observer's time frames?...How do you make an object achieve the speed of light?..
What you're arguing is a "theory" not a fact. Basic science tells you that a theory is a hypothesis that hasn't been proven beyong reasonable doubt.[/QUOTE]
I guess you don't believe in gravity either then. Or that we are made of atoms and molecules. just because you can't see it doens't mean its not true or its not there. People have been trying to disprove Einstein's theory for decades, you're not gonna be the first to make an argument that its wrong.
PureElement, I like your style. lol
It is not a fact. There's a reason why it is called the [B]relativity theory[/B], it hasn't been proven to be a fact of life. How do you even prove that time is dependent on the relative speeds of the observer's time frames?...How do you make an object achieve the speed of light?..
What you're arguing is a "theory" not a fact. Basic science tells you that a theory is a hypothesis that hasn't been proven beyong reasonable doubt.
[QUOTE]There has been considerable testing of the time dilation theory showing the theory proved. However, all tests involve only particles at electron mass and smaller. These tests, by necessity, do not involve particles at nucleonic size in the mechanism which actually measures the timing, due to the accuracy required.
As the twins hypothesis involves particles of nucleonic size i.e. constructed of atoms I do not believe such structures can be effected by time dilation and that this part of Einstein’s postulate is flawed.
This concept has implications in that particles which may have been influenced by time dilation may well be much older than nucleonic particles.
Articles based on Einsteins work indicate that he wrote the time dilation effect would only be appropriate at velocities close to the speed of light.
I now believe that no object of nuclionic particle size or above can be accelerated to anywhere near these speeds. Any such attempt would result in the nuclionic particles being disrupted to the extent that they would either form into a close (touching) mass or fly apart. The so called weak and strong forces being disrupted at these speeds. [/QUOTE]
That's a short essay by my friend. How do you achieve speeds close to the speed of life since Einsten himself beleives that this theory is only true at those speeds. It's called time dilation by the way.
I like how I'm making reasonable arguments and the high school student(Pure Element) and layman(ShadyMilkman) are depending on insults.
[QUOTE][B]I guess you don't believe in gravity either then. Or that we are made of atoms and molecules. [/B]just because you can't see it doens't mean its not true or its not there. People have been trying to disprove Einstein's theory for decades, you're not gonna be the first to make an argument that its wrong.[/QUOTE]
That part of the theory has been proven beyond reasonable doubt while other parts of the theory like time dilation are still in doubt or can't be proven. That is why it remains a theory.
yea look up an article when ur back is against the wall and act like ur an expert. "its called time dilation thank you very much".
like pure said, i guess you dont believe in gravity either.
come to the DARK SIDE Jerm....things are better over here.
[QUOTE=Heilige]So there is only so much variation available, but once again, it's for life as we know it, which is life that resembles that which is on Earth. There could be, and probably is, all sorts of weird life out there that has completely different rules.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm basing everything on. We just don't know the scientific laws for those places we can't go to or can't see. It's a strange thought, but it has to be considered.
The thought that there is vastly more intelligent life out there is just such a crazy thought. Not just that they exist, but that they might have been around before us, watched our planet and our galaxy form, and have studied us since day one of our existence. If so, I guarantee they're getting a kick out of this thread. :eek:
[QUOTE]come to the DARK SIDE Jerm....things are better over here[/QUOTE]
Are you also saying I could travel in high speed to a point in space and view what happened yesterday on earth. Does that sound reasonable to you?...That is what the theory your presenting as "fact" may imply. (Think about the way we see other planets here like they were millions of years ago.)
I feel that time and matter are not connected, but that our measurement of time is connected to matter.
The fact that a second spent on the north pole is different from a second spent in a car traveling west at the equator at sea level and is also different from a super-sonic jet traveling high above the earth bothers me at a fundamental level and is unbeleivable.
This isn't a matter of seconds being lost. It is hte fact that 24 hours in one place can mean 50 years in another. The universe will have a hard time functioning if nothing obeys a time line. There is a time line which is why our universe can be able to even operate. Yesterday is yesterday. You can't go in a flight travelling at the speed of light and see your dead grandpa or see yourself when your balls haven't dropped. These are things that make me beleive that at a fundamental level, these things are wrong.
[QUOTE=Jerm]Are you also saying I could travel in high speed to a point in space and view what happened yesterday on earth. Does that sound reasonable to you?...That is what the theory your presenting as "fact" may imply. (Think about the way we see other planets here like they were millions of years ago.)[/QUOTE]
None of the theories of the higher sciences seem reasonable if you view it with the mind of an ordinary person. Geniuses don't think like any of us, and yet they have made the only real differences in the world. You think Newton or Galileo are any different from the scientists now?
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are based on Math. They don't have enough experimental proof yet, but they are not "shenenigans". They are based on research from the greatest minds in the world. And Mathmatics is just as important as reason or simple observation. Without it we would still base our thinking like Aristotle.
What happens if we mirror Star Trek:TNG and mirror everything they do on the show, form a "federation" with other planets, while becoming enemies with others.
[QUOTE=PureElement]None of the theories of the higher sciences seem reasonable if you view it with the mind of an ordinary person. Geniuses don't think like any of us, and yet they have made the only real differences in the world. You think Newton or Galileo are any different from the scientists now?
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are based on Math. They don't have enough experimental proof yet, but they are not "shenenigans". They are based on research from the greatest minds in the world. And Mathmatics is just as important as reason or simple observation. Without it we would still base our thinking like Aristotle.[/QUOTE]
You're 100x more intelligent than Shady Milkman who thinks everything in the relativity theory has been proven to be facts and we should live by them. They are shenenigans when you think of the implications of these things. They just won't make sense, it will mean that we don't actually exist when we exist. Like it means that I can go outside of space at a high speed and watch how the earth is in the future. These things don't make sense.
Amazing pics.
Just goes to show how insiginficant the earth and humans are in the big picture.