|
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
|
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
|
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Time presently comes to a standstill and ceases to exist in the black hole at the middle of our Milky Way galaxy. I thought chewy nougat was in the center of a Milky Way |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: The speed the earth rotates at, has changed. Did seconds exist before the earth existed? Cecil: Seconds probably came into existence the first time, the first man/woman noticed that sand falling though a narrow opening could be useful in measuring motion and distance (specifically the rotation of the earth in the heavens--is my guess. But, I do admit earlier devices--suns movement, moons movement, heavens movement, movement of the shadow from a stick, etc.) But, you already knew that... But, if you are speaking of "Universal Time Frame" seconds--I don't believe anyone claims to have detected them--yet, I wonder about the UTF with no formed opinion. Now, what argument do you propose for me enjoy thinking about? JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: You really want to propose that my yardstick grows longer (has no relation to human body parts, I am sure! Hmm, could this be possibly be desirable?) while my seconds grow shorter? Both concepts are contained in Lorentz's transformations. Cecil: Lorentz would ONLY plug time into an equation because he did NOT know and understand the real workings of the ether, and, strangely enough, the "quaint notion" of earth time can be used (a mixture of movement and distance.) In much the same way, 377 ohms (the impedance of ether) stands for a mathematical term which can be accounted for with NO other term(s), but obviously speaks to some unknown quality/law/property of the ether... But, once again, you already knew that... JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
Now, what argument do you propose for me enjoy thinking about? Consider that time is an illusion invented by man and that what we experience as passing time is simply change. One second is literally the *change* in rotation of the earth by a physical one second. That's all there is to the concept of time. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: Now, what argument do you propose for me enjoy thinking about? Consider that time is an illusion invented by man and that what we experience as passing time is simply change. One second is literally the *change* in rotation of the earth by a physical one second. That's all there is to the concept of time. Exactly, I love to argue, but when you are right, you are right. I am sure our next argument is just coming to the horizon. JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: You really want to propose that my yardstick grows longer (has no relation to human body parts, I am sure! Hmm, could this be possibly be desirable?) while my seconds grow shorter? Both concepts are contained in Lorentz's transformations. Cecil: I have wondered on some of your thoughts. Let me attempt to kludge together an example to show how so: For one example, the same amateurs which accept the notion of "eternity" and therefore time--a method to measure it and know-of-it by, without question, will also argue that a box in space contains ABSOLUTELY nothing; yet, they claim time exists and the box which contains nothing is being held subject to times qualities and laws. However, an argument could be made, what sense would time make if it measured nothing, indeed, how could time possibly exist as we think of it (can occur without need for motion and/or distance?) If you were in that box time itself would cease to exist and but obviously we have been there and our notion of time does NOT stop, but then, that only proves movement and distance... The point being, time CANNOT exist AND a box in space be TRULY/ABSOLUTELY empty. If you believe in time, you already have made an argument for the ether. (However, no "proof" is absolutlely established, as time could exist AND the box can contain ether, which is the crux of it all...) Imagine the "empty box" out in space, a VERY LONG time ago, and a bunch of minds are around it arguing if it is truly empty or not. Then imagine the big bang theory is not only possible, but it happens right before your eyes in the space contained within the box (empty space), would those minds still be arguing about the ether being impossible, what "clock" would they have timed that bang with? What say you? JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: I'd be interested in hearing the arguments though. Take a look at Lorentz's transformation equations. The physical dimension increases as velocity *decreases*. So an increase in a physical dimension doesn't necessarily imply an increase in velocity. When relativity is involved, it implies a decrease in velocity. Thus, decreasing velocity can cause a relativistic red-shift. Are you talking about displacement when you refer to physical dimension? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Time falls into a group of concepts "discovered" by man. Did time exist before man existed? Did God exist before man existed? Did truth exist before man existed? Did infinity exist before man existed? The list is virtually endless. Did Endless lists exist before man existed? ;^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Mike Coslo wrote:
Are you talking about displacement when you refer to physical dimension? I'm talking about the space dilation equation. x' = (x + vt)/SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2) Quoting George Gamow: "It was Einstein who first realized that Lorentz transformations actually correspond to physical reality ..." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
What say you? Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there was no such thing as time before the "time" of the Big Bang. :-) Note that time is so ingrained in our language that it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time. T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message m... John Smith wrote: What say you? Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there was no such thing as time before the "time" of the Big Bang. :-) Note that time is so ingrained in our language that it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time. T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Time existed before the BB, there was just nothing against which to index it. It's like when you're waiting as your Mrs. tries on clothes or shoes. Time stretches to infinity, it's a relativity thing.(G) Harold KD5SAK |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith wrote: This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and simple device to detect the ether. Consider that the galactic red shift might be caused by the expansion of the ether and not by movement of the galaxies. Most current thought is that the expansion of the ether might be caused by the movement of (expansion of the space between) the galaxies. 73 ac6xg |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Jim Kelley wrote:
Most current thought is that the expansion of the ether might be caused by the movement of (expansion of the space between) the galaxies. Space and ether are likely exactly the same thing. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith wrote: I suspect you of being a rather "Doppler Fellow!" Consider that the mere expansion of empty space itself would cause a red shift possibly unrelated to the Doppler effect. Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift - at least in part. 73, ac6xg |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Anonymous pseudonym wrote:
If you wish to prove time to me, or anyone else for that matter, you have but to show me or propose a demonstration/experiment where it can be seen and measured. However, and remember this well, the demonstration/experiment you propose MUST NOT reference movement and/or distance--as that is what I am admitting are the only possible things our clocks CAN measure. If time did not exist, how old would you be when you read this, and how old would you have been when I wrote it? 73, ac6xg |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Jim Kelley wrote:
Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift - at least in part. The red-shifted background radiation is not necessarily a Doppler effect. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift - at least in part. The red-shifted background radiation is not necessarily a Doppler effect. The background radiation might not even be from the Big Bang, necessarily. But like the doppler red shift, it's the best scientifically supported explanation at the moment. 73, ac6xg |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
kd5sak wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message m... John Smith wrote: What say you? Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there was no such thing as time before the "time" of the Big Bang. :-) Note that time is so ingrained in our language that it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time. T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Time existed before the BB, there was just nothing against which to index it. It's like when you're waiting as your Mrs. tries on clothes or shoes. Time stretches to infinity, it's a relativity thing.(G) Harold KD5SAK Everything real has an affect and produces one or more effect. In the universe you propose, with ONLY time, what do these "look like?" Oh, that's right, there would be NOTHING to effect! So NO affect, so NO time! DUH! But, a tree DOES make a noise, even if nothing is there to 'enjoy' it... And, other things are effected by the trees affect of falling... Now if you claim time IS God, perhaps... JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
"kd5sak" wrote in message ... "Cecil Moore" wrote in message m... John Smith wrote: What say you? Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there was no such thing as time before the "time" of the Big Bang. :-) Note that time is so ingrained in our language that it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time. T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Time existed before the BB, there was just nothing against which to index it. It's like when you're waiting as your Mrs. tries on clothes or shoes. Time stretches to infinity, it's a relativity thing.(G) Harold KD5SAK Before the Big Bang everything may have existed pretty much as we know it now. From some other perspective the universe as we know it may exist as it did at the the instant in time we call the big bang.. In a universe of many to infinite dimensions it seems there could always be at least one perspective of the universe that would appear as a single point much as a perspective of a line could appear as a single point. |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Are you talking about displacement when you refer to physical dimension? I'm talking about the space dilation equation. x' = (x + vt)/SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2) Dontcha just hate translating equations to ascii!! 8^) Anyhow, what alterations to the equation do you propose that will allow or introduce the aging effect? Quoting George Gamow: "It was Einstein who first realized that Lorentz transformations actually correspond to physical reality ..." All very well, but how do you argue for the velocity of light slowing down? How do you propose we attempt to measure this loss in velocity? I see those equations, and don't see that as any problem with light having a constant velocity. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Mike Coslo wrote:
Anyhow, what alterations to the equation do you propose that will allow or introduce the aging effect? No alterations necessary. Just accept the equations as literal facts of physics. All very well, but how do you argue for the velocity of light slowing down? The velocity factor of empty space is changing. With seconds getting shorter and space getting longer, light just cannot travel as far in a second as it once did. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Anyhow, what alterations to the equation do you propose that will allow or introduce the aging effect? No alterations necessary. Just accept the equations as literal facts of physics. Well, it looks like you look at something, and come to quite a different conclusion a a lot of us do. 8^) All very well, but how do you argue for the velocity of light slowing down? The velocity factor of empty space is changing. With seconds getting shorter and space getting longer, light just cannot travel as far in a second as it once did. You don't like relativity? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Michael Coslo wrote:
You don't like relativity? I apparently like it a lot better than some astronomers and astrophysicists. The space containing the Big Bang expanded a lot more than it is possible for 3D space to expand. Therefore, space is not three dimensional. Latest theories are 10+ dimensions for space. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: You don't like relativity? I apparently like it a lot better than some astronomers and astrophysicists. The space containing the Big Bang expanded a lot more than it is possible for 3D space to expand. Therefore, space is not three dimensional. Latest theories are 10+ dimensions for space. I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are making a lot of people take a second look at them. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Michael Coslo wrote:
I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are making a lot of people take a second look at them. Yep, the inquisition didn't like Galileo's side effects either. :-) -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are making a lot of people take a second look at them. Yep, the inquisition didn't like Galileo's side effects either. :-) That may be true, but in this case, it is a number of the proponents of string theory rethinking their position. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
"Jim Kelley" wrote in message ... Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith wrote: This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and simple device to detect the ether. Consider that the galactic red shift might be caused by the expansion of the ether and not by movement of the galaxies. Most current thought is that the expansion of the ether might be caused by the movement of (expansion of the space between) the galaxies. 73 ac6xg It is entirely possible that the galaxies are moving further apart(red shift) even though the universe itself may be shrinking. |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are making a lot of people take a second look at them. Yep, the inquisition didn't like Galileo's side effects either. :-) So they bet on the wrong horse. You might be doing the same thing, Cecil. Most theories are necessarily incorrect. We just don't always know which ones. 73, ac6xg |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Jim Kelley wrote:
So they bet on the wrong horse. You might be doing the same thing, I have faith in my beliefs. :-) Most theories are necessarily incorrect. Except for yours, of course. :-) -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Jimmie D wrote: It is entirely possible that the galaxies are moving further apart(red shift) even though the universe itself may be shrinking. Assuming negative volume in phase space. :-) 73, ac6xg |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: So they bet on the wrong horse. You might be doing the same thing, I have faith in my beliefs. :-) And maybe that is a separator there, Cecil. I'm pretty sure of my position, but I don't have faith in it. Once enough evidence comes along to disprove it, I'll jump ship in a minute. Most theories are necessarily incorrect. Except for yours, of course. :-) ah, a paradox! - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: So they bet on the wrong horse. You might be doing the same thing, I have faith in my beliefs. :-) Most theories are necessarily incorrect. Except for yours, of course. :-) :-) There's theory, and then there's fact. I have some of the latter. But it's the smart guys like you who tend to come up with the theories. 73, ac6xg "Any good theory should always be consistent with the facts." Jim Kelley |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Michael Coslo wrote:
I'm pretty sure of my position, but I don't have faith in it. If your position is not worthy of any faith at all, why do you believe in it? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Jim Kelley wrote:
There's theory, and then there's fact. What fact???? You can't even prove that you exist. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: There's theory, and then there's fact. What fact???? Do you not believe in fact, Cecil? You can't even prove that you exist. :-) There's evidence indicating that I do, and none indicating that I don't. So I'm at least a valid theory. What I can't prove is that I don't exist. For a number of reasons. 73, Jim AC6XG |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message om... Jim Kelley wrote: There's theory, and then there's fact. What fact???? You can't even prove that you exist. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Descartes said; "I think, therefore I am. Probably would say today, " I think I am, therefore I may be" Even philosophers tend to hedge their bets now, I reckon . Harold KD5SAK |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: There's theory, and then there's fact. What fact???? Do you not believe in fact, Cecil? You can't even prove that you exist. :-) There's evidence indicating that I do, and none indicating that I don't. So I'm at least a valid theory. What I can't prove is that I don't exist. For a number of reasons. 73, Jim AC6XG Personally Jim, I doubt your existence. I have a theory you are much more likely to be a "brain in a bottle", you are nothing more than a brain in some aliens laboratory and housed within life support equipment, the body you see as yours is only imagined and a very good illusion. Some of us here are just like you, but I am real (a "control" in the experiment you are involved in.) And, I do understand how all this can be so confusing. Regards, JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
kd5sak wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message om... Jim Kelley wrote: There's theory, and then there's fact. What fact???? You can't even prove that you exist. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Descartes said; "I think, therefore I am. Probably would say today, " I think I am, therefore I may be" Even philosophers tend to hedge their bets now, I reckon . Descartes was in a parade at the University of Poitiers one year. They also had a fine stallion they wanted to show off. The owner of the horse and the parade organizer had a big argument over who would go first until they agreed to put Descartes before the horse. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com