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.
Yes, digestion is a physical process. It is a thing (a thing is not necessarily an object) described by physics. Motion is a thing descbribed by physics. There is no object you can point to called motion.
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.
My answer still the same, show me the journal which holds the papers presented to prove the physical existence of time, the name of the experimenters and the reviews made about the tests. Right in that journal is where I will present my papers.
About Einstein’s papers; in those former eras when the Scientific Method wasn’t enforced to verify the base foundation of the theories, practically any imagination which appeared to be “sound” was accepted. For example, where is the bibliography presented by Einstein from which he based his idea that time flows? I can assure you that lots of records show that his theories were based in philosophy instead of factual evidence.
If Einstein was born 20 years ago and he presents his papers to any journal today, everybody will laugh of him because time doesn’t exist physically and his calculations reach the limits of the absurd. He might be sent easily to a mental institution if he insist that he is right.
Try to present his papers to a journal for a review again, and start to check his base foundation asking for the evidence of a physically existent time.
I strongly suggest that the best solution for this situation is to suit the theories which claim that time exists physically. In court the evidence must be presented “by the requirements of the law” and such theories will be exposed as frauds.
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.
Yes, digestion is a physical process. It is a thing (a thing is not necessarily an object) described by physics. Motion is a thing descbribed by physics. There is no object you can point to called motion.
Show me your definition of digestion as a “thing” using any dictionary (for layman or for technical terms).
Or, propose your own word that fills in this blank: Digestion, symmetry, length, and rocks are all ___________ described by physics. I agree “objects” doesn’t work but then neither does “concepts”. I might go along with “entities”.
[ Edited: 03 September 2007 04:59 PM by the PC apeman ]
My answer is the same: stop chickening out - submit it to a peer reviewed journal (phil mag would be perfect for laughing at you) and post their reply on here. Now, do it!
Not really true. Scientists may need a lot of evidence, but their motivation is to gain knowledge of the universe, and this often requires discarding what was formerly believed. So they like the idea of being wrong.
Occam
I agree with at least past of Occam’s point here. To a scientist, for something to be “wrong” can mean that something unexpected occurred, that there is a discrepancy between ‘facts’ or observations. Identifying a contradiction is key. There is a theory of inventive problem solving based on identifying contradictions ( TRIZ ).
Note that the definition of “thing” even to a dream or as well as “things of the spirit”. now, is it a dream a “physical existent thing”?
You are so confused. You are practically mixing the imaginary apples in your brain with the real and existing physical apples in your table. Even when in your imagination you see “apples” these apples in your brain are not physical things but imaginary things.
You must learn the difference, otherwise your thoughts will continue to be crap to the square. Learn to which one of the categories the physical existing rocks belong to as a” thing”, the same as well you must need to learn to what category the digestion belongs to as a “thing”. and to what category lenght belongs to as a “thing”.
If your answer is that these -rock, digestion, lenght"- belong to the same category as “things”, then you must need to go back to school and learn how to read a dictionary, because in the dictionaries provided by you, each one of them -rock, digestion, lenght- are clearly presented in different categories.
Or, propose your own word that fills in this blank: Digestion, symmetry, length, and rocks are all ___________ described by physics. I agree “objects” doesn’t work but then neither does “concepts”. I might go along with “entities”.
Well, the same as you showed me bunch of dictionaries on-line about the definition of “thing”, now show me the book of physics which say that these three words -rock, digestion, lenght- are considered as “things” of the same category by physics.
My answer is the same: stop chickening out - submit it to a peer reviewed journal (phil mag would be perfect for laughing at you) and post their reply on here. Now, do it!
Edited for language. dougsmith—Admin
Better than that, I was suggested by others to start a court case because Relativity and other theories which assume a physically existing time are against the intellect of people.
See? When a theory is validated with fraud as Relativity was in 1919, and the next predictions of Relativity are based in the fraudulent validation, the whole theory is automatically invalid by law.
By enforcing by law to the representatives of Relativity to show their “(lol) physically existent time” in court, their deceiver propaganda will be automatically exposed as a fraud, because -as you already know thanks to this discussion here- time doesn’t exist physically and by consequence it cannot flow or dilate.
Evolution passed the test in court, I think that Relativity deserves the same treatment. Are you ready to be a volunteer to defend the deluded imaginations found in Relativity?
Not really true. Scientists may need a lot of evidence, but their motivation is to gain knowledge of the universe, and this often requires discarding what was formerly believed. So they like the idea of being wrong.
Occam
I agree with at least past of Occam’s point here. To a scientist, for something to be “wrong” can mean that something unexpected occurred, that there is a discrepancy between ‘facts’ or observations. Identifying a contradiction is key. There is a theory of inventive problem solving based on identifying contradictions ( TRIZ ).
What I observe is that Relativity and other theories preaching a physical existence of time have no problems, they are false by their lack of a primeval factual phenomenon. So, the theories themselves have nothing inside to be fixed. They are false and that’s all.
The “problem” are the bunch of scientists -not all of them- who cannot recognize that they were complete ignorants about reality. They followed a theory based in imaginary phenomena, and now their careers are showed to be good for nothing because from these theories you cannot obtain anything worthy.
For this situatuion we don’t need TRIZ, we need the action of vindicate science by discarding these good for nothing theories.
Better than that, I was suggested by others to start a court case because Relativity and other theories which assume a physically existing time are against the intellect of people.
See? When a theory is validated with fraud as Relativity was in 1919, and the next predictions of Relativity are based in the fraudulent validation, the whole theory is automatically invalid by law.
By enforcing by law to the representatives of Relativity to show their “(lol) physically existent time” in court, their deceiver propaganda will be automatically exposed as a fraud, because -as you already know thanks to this discussion here- time doesn’t exist physically and by consequence it cannot flow or dilate.
Evolution passed the test in court, I think that Relativity deserves the same treatment. Are you ready to be a volunteer to defend the deluded imaginations found in Relativity?
Please let us know how it goes. I’m dying to hear.
conquer, we seem to be communicating poorly here. By definition there is nothing in the realm of physics that is not physical.
1 a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
Yes, the second definition (ETA: not shown here) of “physical” is a synonym for “material” but that is not the definition I’ve been using here. So unless you’re claiming that “the reference data obtained by the comparison of the motion of things” (your definition of time) is outside the realm of physics, why can’t we agree that time is physical? Or, with any luck, that time is a physical phenomenon?
[ Edited: 13 September 2007 11:23 AM by the PC apeman ]
conquer, we seem to be communicating poorly here. By definition there is nothing in the realm of physics that is not physical.
1 a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
Yes, the second definition (ETA: not shown here) of “physical” is a synonym for “material” but that is not the definition I’ve been using here. So unless you’re claiming that “the reference data obtained by the comparison of the motion of things” (your definition of time) is outside the realm of physics, why can’t we agree that time is physical? Or, with any luck, that time is a physical phenomenon?
No, read what a phenomenon is: any event, circumstance, or experience that is apparent to the senses and that can be scientifically described or appraised, as an eclipse
Time cannot be perceived by our senses, period.
For this reason I use the phrase “physically existent” because this is the belief of the ones who follow Relativity.
They believe that time “ physically co-exists” with space. But such assumed fabric of the universe is no more than the fabric used in the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes...Lol!
I can notice that you are trying to favor your argument by playing with words, but science is more than words, science demands evidence, and without physical evidence ...scientifically you have nothing.
Relativity was invented in base of philosophy and not in base of a primeval existing phenomenon or a basic experimental fact.
By consequence Relativity is not science.
Lets see what is about the Theory of Evolution.
Do this theory enjoys the essential facts to be validated? Who has validated this theory? What was the test or experiment which validated this theory some centuries ago? Please notice that I am not asking for the latest experiments but I am asking for the first experiment or test which was used to validate the Theory of Evolution.
Before applying a theory, this theory must be officially validated, so...where is the meat?
Lets review why this theory is called the Theory of Evolution.
You can pick any dictionary and you can read that the definition of this word evolution is different to its definition when Kant or Darwin lived on earth.
In those years the word evolution had a specific arrow which is “a change from inferior to superior, from worst to better, from lower to higher.”
No other meanings were given to this word but such changes with such arrow.
Kant assumed men as an evolution event from apes. Darwin thought the same.
But, some other scientists who based their theories in some religious ideas didn’t agree with evolving species. One of these scientists was Cuvier. Cuvier thought that species appeared in four plans of creation while the others thought that life started simple and became more complex later on.
Lets read a dialogue about it. This happened in the Jardin des Plantes between Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint-Hilarie.
- “How are you going to explain the extinction of animate beings, then, if new growths don’t exist?” asked Geoffroy.
- “By catastrophe. By a series of geological revolutions. Apparently you don’t know your Buffon, my dear colleague. In my view there can only be one answer to that problem.” answered Cuvier.
- Geoffroy smiled, “In your view, then, there were several acts of creation, and every one of them ended in a catastrophe? That may be. The evidence of prehistory seems to confirm it. But Buffon never said that after each catastrophe the earth must have been devastated and empty and then started off again as on the first day of creation. That notion is scientific mysticism.”
- Cuvier asked, “You believe in the Flood, don’t you? And the Flood, according to our traditions, destroyed all life on Earth. Well, any geologist can prove to you not only that there was one Flood, but that there were many, exactly as ,any as the known periods of the Earth’s history. I am perfectly aware that Buffon made the further assumption that a great many species survived into the subsequent geological period after these catastrophes. But his assumption has now become untenable. Have you ever heard of William Smith’s investigations?”
- “William Smith?” Geoffroy asked as implying that the geology of Smith wasn’t related to zoology.
- “Each of William Smith’s layers corresponds to a geological period. Fossils are found in each of them which do not occur in the others. The layers do not overlap. One can even, as Smith has pointed out, use these fossils as guides to identify the separate geological periods.” continued Cuvier.
- Geoffroy agreed, “Obviously. And Geology will be benefited by the fact. I still don’t understand why that should be an argument against the evolution of the species.”
- Cuvier responded, “You really don’t understand? Each epoch has its own animals and plants. They arise with it and perish with it. Catastrophes obliterate. Nature creates anew, in accordance with those four plans that are clearly recognizeable in all periods.”
- Geoffroy demanded, “Well, how did it happen then, that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the Earth first and the most highly organized, including Man, came last?”(*)
(* Emphasis mine)
Well, it is completely understood that the words of Geoffroy are false as a three dollars billl because the species do not evolve from inferior to superior. Then we have a question. If the theory of Evolution of Darwin is invalid becuse there are not such “favourable changes only” in the species, who has changed the meaning of the word evolution in the dictionaries to make it appear as “a change without a specific arrow?
What? Are you going to change the meaning of a word solely to please a theory of biology and make it valid at all costs?
As we clearly can observe, the word “evolution” in the theory which carries it started long before Darwin, and this theory was focused in only one vision: that life on earth started with living creatures which were simpler, inferior and worst and later they became more complex, superior and better.
This idea that from lower status to higher status still in vigency when the supporters of this theory claims that men are descendants of apes.
Is this true or factual? By no means, No facts at all support this idea of the theory of evolution. And a theory without facts is not a valid theory.
Lets continue with the dialogue between Cuvier and Geoffroy. We read that Geoffroy believed that there were no such four plans of creation but a sole general plan where animate beings had gradually evolved from lower to higher forms throughout successive floods and geological periods.
- “And what proves the existence of such a general plan?” asked Cuvier.
- Geoffroy explained, “I do the same as you do. I compare. But while you deduce differences from your comparison I deduce similarities, If I may cite a few examples, gills, for instance, resemble lungs and may be their forerunners. A bird’s wing resembles the leg of a reptile and may have evolved from it.”
- These words caused laughs in Cuvier who thought that the dreamer of Geoffroy was seeing similarities where none existed. It was clear that Geoffroy was following a stricted philosophy only. “We need not discuss this matter any further. I am a natural scientist, not a natural philosopher. And my intentions is to remain a natural scientist.”
- Geoffroy reacted with a key question, “I suppose you don’t know that your friend and spokeman Lamarck thinks exactly the same as I do?”
- Cuvier cried, “Lamarck?...That is imposible!”
- “Lamarck and I are each writing a philosophy of zoology! said Geoffroy with great enthusiam.
- “Am I in the Jardin or a lunatic asylum?” said Cuvier and left the room.
The discussions between Cuvier and Lamarck weren’t very friendly after Lamarck accepted the Law of Correlation but rejected the four plans of creation. Lamarck had vision problems and he used his daughter as help to read his lectures. Cuvier was somehow sarcastic with the situation, as when Lamarck with irony challenged Cuvier about his plans of creation, “Why limit yourself to four? You might just as well assumed dozens of plans and acts of creation. The result would be inextricable confusion. To be quite frank, I should prefer the evolution theory.”
Cuvier defended himself ending with a sarcastic attack, “Species are immutable! There is no such thing as evolution, there can’t be! How could the accidental play of evolution produce that signficant mutual relationship between the parts of the body? All the phenomena of nature are arranged in accordance with the laws of logic. Anyone with eyes in his head can see the four plans of creation identified by me by staring him in the face.”
Cuvier started to gain fame with his correlation law. This law stated that if an animal develops one of its organs in an unmistakable manner, a particular development of its other organs can be counted on.
In one ocassion some students decided to play a trick on him. One of the students dressed up as the Devil, this is to say, he stuck horns on his head, put on shoes sharped like a cloven hoof and broke into Cuvier’s house by night. His companions crowded round the window and stared in.
Cuvier was sleeping when a great voice roared in his ear: “Wake up, thou man of catastrophes! I am the Devil!”
Cuvier at once opened his eyes, lit a candle, and observed the monster with interest. The intruder said again, “I am the Devil! I have come to devour you!”
“Devour me?” Cuvier shook his head, “I doubt wheter you can. You’ve got horns and hoofs. According to the Law of Correlation you only eat plants.” He turned on his other side and went to sleep again.
The students outside the window instead of laughing, gave him an enthusiastic ovation.
Not really true. Scientists may need a lot of evidence, but their motivation is to gain knowledge of the universe, and this often requires discarding what was formerly believed. So they like the idea of being wrong.
Occam
Nice thread! I just wanted to say that aeons ago I was absolutely convinced that quaterians were profoundly important to any unification of quantum mechanics and relativity. They’re inherently 4D, like spacetime, and they have strange commuation properties that easily replicate the distincly known categories of extant particles (e.g. quark-antiquark, three-quark, lepton, and force-mediating particles). I won’t go into details - mainly because I was wrong. Turns out quaternions are nearly appropriate, but not quite. It essentially comes down to the sign (+/-) of the terms necessary to create a consistent algebra vs the signs necessary to model space-time. Turns out, they don’t agree. Einstein and others went down this alley for a while and found a dead end. But, that didn’t keep ignorant me from getting excited about it.
So what’s my point? The point is I was actually HAPPY to learn I was wrong, since it meant I could go off and think about other, non-wrong things instead of wasting my time and energy. Now, since I’m a human critter, I have experienced many times when I’ve been ticked off at being wrong, and especially at having been “called on the carpet” for being wrong. I suspect scientists aren’t above such emotion. But, and here’s my point - as the topic in question becomes more amenable to objective substantiation vs. subjective opinion, I believe it becomes easier to clearly recognize those possessed of wrong notions. In cases where “those” are one’s self, it becomes foolish to hang onto bad ideas. To be able to let go of incorrect ideas is, I believe, a sign of emotional ane intellectual maturity. However, we shouldn’t presume that most (or many) people have such maturity.
This leads to thoughts about cognative dissonance and the immunity of the untrained and emotionally biased mind to facts, but that’s a whole other ball of worms.
