psikeyhackr - 28 January 2008 01:19 PM

Lol, in this world, reality is that we have laws, and fraud is recognized as a violation of the law

You are using the word LAW as if talking about laws made by humans.

LAWS of physics just are.  Human beings can only figure out what the are.  If Einstein figured it out correctly but someone else lied to convince people that Einstein had done so that does not change Einstein’s accomplishment.  At this point you wold have to prove him wrong.  GOOD LUCK!

ROFLMAO

You think with words instead of comprehension of physics.

psik

Ok, I am proving him wrong right now:

1)- Atomic clocks malfunction in outer space.

2)- The malfunction of these clocks is observed whith their data which differs fromto the data of clocks on ground that have been equally calibrated.

3)- This difference of data is a delayed or a faster functional work in the atomic clocks by being exposed to an environment other than the one where they were calibrated on ground.

4)- His thought experiments with moving clocks in his theory of Relativity are subjected to the same conditions of being affected by a change in their environment.

5)- By consequence, such silly ideas that the clocks work “perfectly” in any change in their environment are false. Clocks shall malfunction as a reaction of their matter and of the functional work of their internal parts in front of the changes around..

6)- Another consequence is to discard completely the absurd approach that “time” is the affected one while clocks still working fine.

7)- The only justifiable reason to assume that clocks work perfectly under any condition of acceleration or low gravity, and that time alone is the affected one, is by proving first -without doubt- that time exists physically.

8)- As time has never ever been proved to exists physically and there is not a single observable evidence of such an existence, the ideas of Einstein are crap to the square.

You can verify these statements by applying the scientific method. Use the method of your desire, as long as it obeys the impartiality in the tests, and are based in factual -more than verifiable sources alone- events, I can tell you that Einstein’s ideas fit very well in philosophy, but that definitively, Relativity is not science.

conquer - 29 January 2008 02:50 PM

As time has never ever been proved to exists physically and there is not a single observable evidence of such an existence, the ideas of Einstein are crap to the square.

I obviously have no idea what I am talking about but I think even if Gödel was right and time doesn’t exist, and the illusion of time is somehow created by an infinite number of layers of space, it still doesn’t prove that Einstein’s theory is crap. I know love doesn’t exist but I still love my wife.

I know love doesn’t exist but I still love my wife.

Ah, I can hear the anniversary-dinner sweet talk now:

Mrs. George: “I can’t believe it’s been so many years, honey. And to think I love you as much now as I did when we were first married!”

George: “Yes, dear, it is amazing. Of course, there’s no such thing as love, but that doesn’t change how I feel about you one bit. Honey, what are you doing with that plate? Ouch!”

1)- Atomic clocks malfunction in outer space.

Why is anyone supposed to give a damn about what you think about science when you don’t even provide links for your claims?  You certainly haven’t earned enough respect for me to spend time searching.  So if you don’t provide links don’t waste your time typing.

psik

Brennen, how did you know?

P.S.: An advice to all the future husbands: don’t ever try to explain love through science, and never, ever, quote a philosopher in a middle of an argument.

George - 29 January 2008 07:19 PM

An advice to all the future husbands: don’t ever try to explain love through science, and never, ever, quote a philosopher in a middle of an argument.

conquer - 29 January 2008 02:50 PM

1)- Atomic clocks malfunction in outer space.

Yes, exactly as predicted by relativity. See here.

Oh, and here of course.

I hope you will soon come with a new scientific theory:
- that explains the same phenomena as relativity, without introducing more (ad hoc) assumptions
- that is at least as exact in its calculations
- that explains why physicists for so long thought relativity to be correct
- is successful where relativity is not at the moment (integration with QM)
- that predicts new phenomena, that can be tested experimentally

As long as you do not have such a theory, relativity is the best we have, and we must live with it.

GdB

Edit: added sentence starting with ‘Oh’, and made links bold.

George - 29 January 2008 05:36 PM

conquer - 29 January 2008 02:50 PM

As time has never ever been proved to exists physically and there is not a single observable evidence of such an existence, the ideas of Einstein are crap to the square.

I obviously have no idea what I am talking about but I think even if Gödel was right and time doesn’t exist, and the illusion of time is somehow created by an infinite number of layers of space, it still doesn’t prove that Einstein’s theory is crap. I know love doesn’t exist but I still love my wife.

Infinite number of layers of space?

You really “love” such fantasies, don’t you?

psikeyhackr - 29 January 2008 06:59 PM

1)- Atomic clocks malfunction in outer space.

Why is anyone supposed to give a damn about what you think about science when you don’t even provide links for your claims?  You certainly haven’t earned enough respect for me to spend time searching.  So if you don’t provide links don’t waste your time typing.

psik

Why is anyone to give a dumb for such foolish imaginations of Relativity as well?

Show me the physical existence of time so it can be “dilated” (ha, ha, ha...) and that the atomic clocks are unaffected by acceleration (uhhh you have to show it babe...) so you might complaint about my statements based in solid facts.

Read the tens, if not hundreds or thousands of links about the effects of low gravity on matter in general.

Even the spiders making their web have been observed in outer space, metal liquids which cannot be mixed on earth are able to be mixed in outer space.

You have lots of tests that show that matter -organic and inorganic- is indeed affected by acceleration and by gravity.

In base of this solid fact which has “no exceptions” as far as it is known, the atomic clock and its functional parts is affected as well by the changes in its environment.

The explanation is based in how these changes affect the regular motion of the elements of matter.

You have not a more accurate explanation to challenge the one given by following this realistic fact recorded through the years.

On the other hand, the claim that the atomic clock’s functional work is not affected by such changes is not only infantile but stupid. Relativity is not science.

GdB - 31 January 2008 12:17 AM

conquer - 29 January 2008 02:50 PM

1)- Atomic clocks malfunction in outer space.

Yes, exactly as predicted by relativity. See here.

Lol, such theory is such stupid that ignores that the earth travels at 29km per second. This is to say, that the speed of earth is already “dilating time”. I don’t see this factor in such silly calculations. By applying Relativity on us standing on ground, we are already dilating time ...ha, ha, ha…

But wait, the Sun travels at hundreds of Kilometers per second around our galaxy, and “time has been also dilated” by such speed, I still can’t see such factor included in the Relativity equations.

Oh, and here of course.

More fantasies.

I hope you will soon come with a new scientific theory:
- that explains the same phenomena as relativity, without introducing more (ad hoc) assumptions

Very simple, the motion of the elements is affected by the changes in the environment. Don’t you see that the motion of light bends when it passes through different mediums? The same happen with matter.

- that is at least as exact in its calculations

Lol, the calculations of Relativity are a hoax, a number game played with excellent talent.

- that explains why physicists for so long thought relativity to be correct

You ignore the real history of Relativity, do you? Relativity was never accepted by anyone in Einstein’s years, this theoryy has been imposed. Read the several records of many scientists who disagree with its validation and their voices weren’t heard because Relativity started a great campaing to spread out its fantasies. For example, movies and books say that e=mc^2 was discovered by Einstein, the truth is that Einstein copied it from records he found in his job as a patent clerk.

- is successful where relativity is not at the moment (integration with QM)

Oh, I see, another propagandist writing here...Einstein died miserably trying to unite these two theories, but I can tell you that reality cannot mix with fantasies and for tis reason Einstein died in the shadows of a fake glory. Nice try.

- that predicts new phenomena, that can be tested experimentally

What has Relativcity predicted? That time dilates while the clocks functional work is not affected?

Ha, ha, ha,...please keep trying.

As long as you do not have such a theory, relativity is the best we have, and we must live with it.

GdB

Edit: added sentence starting with ‘Oh’, and made links bold.

Yes, I can see that you love entertainment.

Now lets go to serious business, Relativity is not only a fake but a very damaging idea.

First, Relativity is not science but philosophy.

Second, it has been validated with fraud.

Third, its predictions stink, there is not such a physical event as “dilatation of time”, in reality matter and energy are indeed affected by the changes in their envvironment.

Fourth, as this process is already a fact, the only theory we need is to explain why some elements change their motion in one way or another in matter and energy.

Fifth, the sooner we discard the good for nothing Relativity from science, the faster we will be able to work in a “fantasy free” environment and study seriously our universe the way it is supposed to be: by the strict application of the scientific method from beginning to end.

conquer - 01 February 2008 05:25 PM

Infinite number of layers of space?

You really “love” such fantasies, don’t you?

Why not? When we watch a movie (a “motion” picture) we perceive the 18 frames per second (due to psychological phenomena called beta movement) as a movement. Maybe each one of the uncertain locations of the electron in QM corresponds to its own parallel universe (a layer of space) and as many ( ) of these universes keep appearing all the time (and us within them) it might create the illusion of time. Or something like that…

Conquer, please, for my sake, answer two questions.

Have you taken a college level course in Relativity?
If so, where?

conquer - 01 February 2008 06:04 PM

Lol, such theory is such stupid that ignores that the earth travels at 29km per second. This is to say, that the speed of earth is already “dilating time”. I don’t see this factor in such silly calculations. By applying Relativity on us standing on ground, we are already dilating time ...ha, ha, ha…

But wait, the Sun travels at hundreds of Kilometers per second around our galaxy, and “time has been also dilated” by such speed, I still can’t see such factor included in the Relativity equations.

Er, sorry to ask such a silly question, but you know that time dilation is relative, right? It depends on the reference frame, and since satellites are on the earth and sun’s reference frame, their motion relative to other planets, stars and galaxies is of no bearing when calculating dilation relative to earth. You also know that the dilatory effects are de minimus unless the speeds involved are close to the speed of light?

Please provide some evidence for your claims. Your posts are very close to trolling, which is not allowed here.

dougsmith - 02 February 2008 08:52 AM

Please provide some evidence for your claims. Your posts are very close to trolling, which is not allowed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often erroneously used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.

Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer’s motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities.

Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning “Please do not feed the troll”.[citation needed]

Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves.

Doug the discussion has definitely drifted away from the initial posts which were very focused on Paul Davies and reponses to his op-ed.  The original topic was spot-on for the discussion forum.

Jackson, I won’t use that term, however, I quickly ignore posters who a) post completely off-topic; b) post multipage ramblings that seem to have little point; c) posit a position without any demonstation of proof or even reasonableness; d) continue to repeat their position even in the face of repeated responses showing it to be false at best or silly at worst. 

Unfortunately, most of the posters here are good, intelligent people who are used to interesting discussions, so they don’t recognize when a poster fits the above categories and honestly try to respond, thus “feeding the ______”.  I understand and completely agree with Doug’s admonition whether or not the term “troll” is as accurate as one might desire.

The repeated posts arguing against relativity, for example, without even the slightest evidence, and in the face of hundreds of thousands of hours of verification by thousands of scientists is, in this case, much worse than silly and is completely off-topic.

Occam