3 of 7
3
“Facts Only”
Posted: 01 September 2007 11:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
dougsmith - 29 August 2007 01:31 PM
conquer - 29 August 2007 11:20 AM

First, clocks cannot measure any physical passage of time. This is factual and it must be recognized as such.

What do you mean by “physical passage of time”? If clocks don’t measure time, what do they measure? If they don’t measure anything, what do they do?

They do tic tic tic. They functional work is calibrasted to do tic tic tic and no more than that.

Check the anemometer. The anemometer has a sensor which detects the “physical passage of winds”. So, if the wind flows fast the anemometer will tell you how fast, if the wind slows its flowing the anemometer will inform you about the event. Anemometers won’t do tic tic tic as clocks do.

Now, show yourself an open clock and find the sensor which perceives the physical passage of time. If not any, then you must admit that clocks do not measure any physical passage of time.

What clocks do measure? Clocks indeed are devices which are used as the measurement -like the inch in a ruler- the clocks measure the interval of your motion from one place to another against the rotation’s cycle of the earth.

 

conquer - 29 August 2007 11:20 AM

Second, there are several explanations which are more accurate but are not considered for review because they can hurt an established theory not because the explanations are false or erroneous.

Which ones? What data can you provide that these explanations are “more accurate” than relativity?

1) Atomic clocks malfunction in outer space or in any other new environment different to the one where they were calibrated.

a) The low gravity affects matter in general. Example, liquid metals which cannot be mixed on ground due to our gravity can be mixed in outer space. What now? Are they able to be mixed because their time around them has been distorted? Come on.

b) Relativists who performed the tests were looking for goverment grants to continue getting paid. Poor guys, their lives depend on their lies.

c) Changes of environment do directly affect bodies and energy and the idea of a flowing time -never been proved to exist physically- is no more than crap to the square.

d) Atomic clocks are affected by its moving parts which are the vibration frequency of the atom of Caesium exposed to different environment and the signals distorted by the presence of cosmic rays as an additional cause.

Atomic clocks are -in assumption - tested to changes in temperature but are not tested in low gravity. I can tell you this, you assemble the parts of the atomic clock in outer space and calibrate its functional work right there and the receiver which updates the errors from the current atomic clocks won’t be needed.

Or, you assemble the atomic clocks in outer space and their data will show errors if the clock is sent back to earth.

As long as clocks functional work is no more than tic tic tic such device is not the instrument which proves the physical existence of time, maybe in your dreams but not so in reality.

I asked you for the explanation of the mechanism which is in progress in a Muon when is exposed to high speeds in the accelerator. By the way, I’ll hope that you know what is a Muon. I guess that this is the main question which by answering it properly it discards the relativistic assumptions without questions. What is a Muon?

Take your time and please give the best answer about what is this particle. You will see that the assumptions made in base of Relativistic phenomena are 100% false just by finding out what is a Muon.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2007 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Sorry, conquer, this response is simply absurd. Where is the “sensor” in a ruler to measure the physical passage of space? And what do clocks have to do with the rotation of the earth?

Your claims that atomic clocks malfunction in outer space, and your nasty slurs on “relativists” (who precisely are these?) are laughable. Next time you propound such arrant nonsense I would suggest at least providing some semblance of evidence for it.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2007 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

Ooh dear, is conquer still spouting unresearched and erroneous tripe, despite the mountain of evidence that nobody believes him and their extremely sensible arguments against him?  Look, conquer, submit your bollocks to a peer-reviewed journal and they will tell you straight out to shut up and go away.  There is no point trying to convince us, but given the fact that you’ve convinced yourself - try convicing experts in the field and see what they make of it.  I’m guessing they’ll put it on their roses as fertiliser.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2007 09:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I suppose I shoulc chastise Doug and narwhol for being harsh to conquer.  However, I can’t because there comes a point where rational response is useless and only a strong statement has any chance of getting through.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 02:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

Occam, it’s late and I’m starting to get sleepy, but you some how made me laugh.  Chastise Doug?  LOL  He has seniority over you?  OK Ok I’m one to talk, because he and I hashed it out once before too over a different topic.  wink

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20
conquer - 01 September 2007 10:52 PM

I am showing you in your face that time doesn’t exist physically and there is nothing in this world to prove the contrary but several facts through the scientific method to back up my statements. Contrary to your beliefs, it is not necessary to “replace a theory with another” but the discarding of theories can be made solely by their lack of scientific evidence.

Your use of quotes here is misleading.  Please point out where I expressed a belief that it is necessary to replace one theory with another. It just happens to be the way your Le Verrier example was resolved.

Actually your acceptance of a physically flowing time is your act of faith because a fact is not.

Again you are being dishonest.  I expressed my position on time to you here. I’ve also linked to a similar position here.  Nowhere have I expressed a sense of “flowing time”.

Their motto that “imaginations are more important than knowledge” is so stupid that they themselves are trapped in their own lies. Hawking is a good example, this individual already has recognized that time traveling is not possible at all because the laws of physics won’t allowed it.

Here’s another example of you ranting against positions no one is advancing.  It may be more enjoyable for you to assign positions to others but I find your strategies boring.

I’ll also note that you avoided answering my questions: ”What are the experiments that support your ideas? Who in particular is suppressing them?” Direct answers will be a good step towards rehabilitating your intellectual honesty.

 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
dougsmith - 02 September 2007 10:28 AM

Sorry, conquer, this response is simply absurd. Where is the “sensor” in a ruler to measure the physical passage of space? And what do clocks have to do with the rotation of the earth?

Your claims that atomic clocks malfunction in outer space, and your nasty slurs on “relativists” (who precisely are these?) are laughable. Next time you propound such arrant nonsense I would suggest at least providing some semblance of evidence for it.

The laughable situation here is that you don’t even know what is a Muon and you want to discuss the veracity of Relativity with plain ignorance.

I guess that you are not the right person to defend such deluded fantasies of Relativity as if they were real science approaches.

About clocks malfunctioning in outer space is a fact. You have to have a receiver which will update the errors sent by these clocks, check any well informed web site about it. A receiver will make the corrections to the errors so the timing will be set properly continually.

The GPS system works because the corrections made by the receiver, this is to say, that the GPS functional system works properly thanks to a device which corrects its errors.

The idea of a flexible or malleable physical time is so ridiculous, it appears that the supporters of Relativity think of time as if time is an object with characteristics similar to the ones observed with rubber., and this idea is stupid.

[ Edited: 03 September 2007 01:48 PM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 02 September 2007 12:35 PM

Ooh dear, is conquer still spouting unresearched and erroneous tripe, despite the mountain of evidence that nobody believes him and their extremely sensible arguments against him? Look, conquer, submit your bollocks to a peer-reviewed journal and they will tell you straight out to shut up and go away. There is no point trying to convince us, but given the fact that you’ve convinced yourself - try convicing experts in the field and see what they make of it. I’m guessing they’ll put it on their roses as fertiliser.

You don’t have any evidence but a mountain of crap. You still can’t provide the evidence that time exists physically. Until that day your words about a physical existent time are fantasies.

About presenting papers to journals. Tell the truth, don’t tell me that you ignore that others have already tried to take away the fantasies of an existing physical time.

As far as I know, a young physicists did it and the “Scientific Inquisition” didn’t even wanted to review his paper because they cannot accept that they are plain wrong. I read the news long ago, and the “excuse” given by the scientific leaders was that to accept the statements of this young scientists should push “the frontiers of physics forward in the past”

Poor idiots, currently the scientific leaders are indeed retrograding science by millenniums by believing in deluded imaginations that time exists physically and that flows.

look what is going on with a guy who tried to brake the fantasies about time presenting his paper in a journal

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php

Hawking with his tail hidden between his legs didn’t want even to face the questions made in reference to this paper.

I think that the several scientists who are currently found writing articles in the web (check every web link where several scientific organizations are proving Relativity as plain wrong) must unite themselves and demand for the evidence of such physical existing time in court. Like the theory of Evolution was put in court long ago, it is time to make known to the general public about the fantasies found in several theories of physics about time.

Every attempt to do the right thing and demonstrate that time is no more than a concept, a measure, a parameter will be voided by certain scientists who manipulate the journals and the media. The news of this article from above must be published in most magazines of science, in TV news, and radio news as well. Every newspaper with a science section must publish it.

People have the right to be informed of both sides, the side which argues that time exists physically and flows; and the side which proves that time is no more than a concept, a measure, a parameter.

A court case against the theories which support a physical existing time can bring a general knowledge of both sides and in court the side with the required scientific evidence shall be vindicated.

What do you think? If you are called to court to prove the physical existence of time, can you show there your evidence of such existence? You cannot do it right here without any pressure, what about in court?

Lol.

[ Edited: 03 September 2007 01:55 PM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
Occam - 02 September 2007 09:17 PM

I suppose I shoulc chastise Doug and narwhol for being harsh to conquer.  However, I can’t because there comes a point where rational response is useless and only a strong statement has any chance of getting through.

Occam

If you are honest with your words, why don’t you ask them here to show their evidence that time exists physically?

I can tell you that their only evidence will be no more than weak statements and zero rationality and zero facts.

I can guarantee you this with 100% of accuracy.
Try it, please ask them and you will see.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

If you honestly believe your own nonsense, send it into a peer-reviewed journal to be either validated or laughed at.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
the PC apeman - 03 September 2007 10:24 AM
conquer - 01 September 2007 10:52 PM

I am showing you in your face that time doesn’t exist physically and there is nothing in this world to prove the contrary but several facts through the scientific method to back up my statements. Contrary to your beliefs, it is not necessary to “replace a theory with another” but the discarding of theories can be made solely by their lack of scientific evidence.

Your use of quotes here is misleading. Please point out where I expressed a belief that it is necessary to replace one theory with another. It just happens to be the way your Le Verrier example was resolved.

Ok, discard my words that it is not necessary to replace a theory by another one. Now, lets go to the meat, where is your physical existing time? Show it.

Actually your acceptance of a physically flowing time is your act of faith because a fact is not.

Again you are being dishonest. I expressed my position on time to you here. I’ve also linked to a similar position here. Nowhere have I expressed a sense of “flowing time”.

So, lets go to specifics, in plain and straight words, give me your definition of time. And please, if it is possible explain if your definition includes time as physically existing. If I misunderstood your words in the former reply of yours, that is the past. At this time I should request from you a clear and specific answer.

I will give you mine: Time is the reference data obtained by the comparison of the motion of things.

I will explain it.

You observe a cycled motion to which you will use as the “standard motion”. You calibrate a device which will set in accord to the object or phenomenon. In this case, I will calibrate a clock in accord to my selected “standard motion” which is the cycled rotation of the earth.

From here, with this device called clock I will compare the data given by this clock with the motion of other objects around, like the motion of my car. After driving my car for 5 miles I will compare the distance against the clock’s data and I will establish that I was driving my car at 25 miles per hour.

This is my definition of time and my explanation which can be easily proved by you through the required steps of the scientific method.

In other words, my definition of time can be proved as correct using any method of science applied for this purpose.

Their motto that “imaginations are more important than knowledge” is so stupid that they themselves are trapped in their own lies. Hawking is a good example, this individual already has recognized that time traveling is not possible at all because the laws of physics won’t allowed it.

Here’s another example of you ranting against positions no one is advancing. It may be more enjoyable for you to assign positions to others but I find your strategies boring.

I find boring the attacks from the paid media arguing that guys like Hawking are serious scientists telling the truth. I was in another forum of science where a student of Princeton was very disappointed when he asked Hawking a question about the possibilities of Hawking being in error about Black Holes existence, Hawking reaction was ugly as if he was a god and his words the only rule.

Being wolves dressed as lambs is their common status, they produce lies and when you expose their deceiver words they cry like victims. The game is over. That’s all.

I’ll also note that you avoided answering my questions: ”What are the experiments that support your ideas? Who in particular is suppressing them?” Direct answers will be a good step towards rehabilitating your intellectual honesty.

I have mentioned the experiments already, and some of the results were given as well. Just do it by yourself, buy 5 or more watches and install them in different “environments in your house, like the freezer compartment of the refrigerator, about half inch of separation from the heating exhaust pipe, under ground in your backyard, installed in one of the blades of a fan (use single pole switches in the other blades to compensate the balance, we did it and it worked fine), and so and so.

The watches had an almost standard rate of malfunction, all of them were slower than the watch installed in the living-room wall at a standing temperature of +-70 degrees.

With this simple experiment -you don’t need very sophisticated equipment to prove the same- it is proved that clocks malfunction when are exposed to different environments. Check for example that the accuracy of your car clock also fails after Winter or a very hot Summer. Actually, all the clocks in the world which are not maintained in a standard environment without changes must be reset.

Atomic clocks are not exempted for this physical reaction of a body exposed to a different environment. If, by any reason someone argues that the functional work of atomic clocks cannot be affected by gravity, such individual is a lunatic. Several tests made in outer space have revealed that matter is indeed affected by low gravity without exceptions.

Just do the experiment suggested by me, you won’t loose anything because a couple hundred bucks is worthy to check who is right and who is wrong.

I can tell you that after the experiment you will check the rate of error in the data of the affected clocks as very similar to the rate of error in the data of the atomic clocks in outer space, this is to say, for example, the watch in the freezer was slow in a rate of 6 seconds per day. Compare this results with the rate of error in the data given by atomic clocks which show a same amount of faster fractions of a second per day.

Nothing in both cases imply that time slows or dilates. Gravity and speed do affect matter, this is to say, the moving object. Like speed affects your health, try traveling is a fast war airplane and feel the pressure against you caused by the speed of the airplane against the environment. Check the health of the astronauts deteriorating fast due to the different gravity in outer space.

Nothing, nothing at all implies a change in time but they show clear changes in the affected bodies.

I will suggest you to take away the idea of a flexible time when you review the several changes in the objects. You will see that the changes inn the environment is enough evidence to be used as the explanation for the changes.

On the other hand, as long as time is not proved as physically existent, such ideas are not considered evidence at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 03 September 2007 12:59 PM

If you honestly believe your own nonsense, send it into a peer-reviewed journal to be either validated or laughed at.

Your nonsense of a physical existing time is the laughable situation here. Where are you hidding your evidence? Show your journal of science where such physical existing time has been proved as correct…or just keep living in plain and deliberate ignorance.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 02:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20

conquer, you don’t seem to be reading what I write.  Perhaps a simpler format will help.  Please tell me where you disagree with the following statements:

1) “Physical” pertains to things that are described by physics.
2) Physical things physically exist.
3) All material objects are physical things.
4) Not all physical things are material objects.
5) Processes like digestion, arrangements like symmetry, and measurements like length are not material objects but they are physical things - they are all described by physics.
6) Ratios of comparable things (such as lengths) are also physical things.  (What is any length if not a ratio?)
7) Changes such as motion are physical things.
8) Ratios of different motions are physical things.
9) Time is the ratio of selected motions.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Time physically exists.

[ Edited: 03 September 2007 02:59 PM by the PC apeman ]
 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

As I say, stick it in a journal.  You keep arguing against time being tangible (which it’s not) as if that were synonymous with being physically real (which time is).  Stick it in a peer reviewed journal.  I think that’s where Einstein (and other people who understand science) score over you -  he (and they) could (can) get their work published in peer reviewed journals.  You can’t.  Stick it in a peer reviewed journal and post their response on here.  Give us all a chuckle.

[ Edited: 03 September 2007 03:52 PM by narwhol ]
 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 04:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
the PC apeman - 03 September 2007 02:40 PM

conquer, you don’t seem to be reading what I write. Perhaps a simpler format will help. Please tell me where you disagree with the following statements:

1) “Physical” pertains to things that are described by physics.
2) Physical things physically exist.
3) All material objects are physical things.
4) Not all physical things are material objects.
5) Processes like digestion, arrangements like symmetry, and measurements like length are not material objects but they are physical things - they are all described by physics.
6) Ratios of comparable things (such as lengths) are also physical things. (What is any length if not a ratio?)
7) Changes such as motion are physical things.
8) Ratios of different motions are physical things.
9) Time is the ratio of selected motions.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Time physically exists.

You failure is found in #4, #5,, #6. #7, #8 and the irrelevant conclusion of yours found in #9

Show me for example the “dilatation” of of that thing of yours called digestion. You are confused in your use of proper language, digestion is a physical process, implies motion, and the real physical objects are the food and the acids of the stomach in motion.

Thanks for your contribution anyway, it helps to discard the idea of a physically existent time from a different point of view.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3