Ummmmm gentleman, NO to both
In my defence I am not claiming existence of
- X coordinate (concept)
- lump of gravity (exist due to it being detectable)
- lump of strong force (exist due to it being detectable)
- lump of distance (concept)
Black holes do not exist
- Thread starter Luchito
- Start date
Ummmmm gentleman, NO to both
In my defence I am not claiming existence of
Is it an objective fact that you have to walk less distance from your bathroom to your lounge room than to walk from your bathroom to the local shops?
Does that suggest to you that distance has an objective reality, or not?
Is it an objective fact that your mother has been alive longer than you have?
What does that suggest to you about time? Anything?
It is one of the three dimensions of space, and one of the four dimensions of spacetime. It's as much a concept vs a reality that time is.
Luchito:
(Are you planning on demonstrating any error in relativity, some time soon? We're still waiting.)
(Are you planning on demonstrating any error in relativity, some time soon? We're still waiting.)
Precise atomic clocks do not malfunction. We know exactly how precise they are, in terms of how much they will desynchronise over time. They are typically accurate to about 1 second in 100 million years.
A digital watch that uses a quartz crystal oscillator is far less accurate than an atomic clock, even without being subjected to temperature variations and the like. For comparison, digital watches are typically accucate to about 15 to 30 seconds per month. Very different to 1 second per 100 million years.
The atomic clocks in outer space have been designed to work in outer space. Duh!
No. You said that Paul was travelling faster than Peter, with respect to the Earth. That difference in velocity won't magically disappear just because you happen to be on Jupiter. This is a basic error. How can you, with your advanced degrees in physics, make this kind of rookie mistake?
Surely you must be aware that relative can cope with more than two reference frames? Did you not learn this in your undergraduate physics classes?
Distance - Distance is a numerical measurement of how far apart objects or points are
I would add (expand a little to such definition) agreed upon
Distance is a agreed upon numerical measurement of how far apart objects or points are
So NO distance has not a objective reality
Covered this previously. In this you are taking AGE not TIME
Yes, time is frequently confused, and used, interchangeably (incorrectly) with age
A geographic coordinate system is a (arbitrary) coordinate system (humans made it up - it is a CONCEPT or IDEA if you will) associated with positions on Earth
Humans made up the SYSTEM. We didn't walk out of the cave we were living in to a premapped world
reality - the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence. In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown.
Still waiting on that lump of existent TIME
Your age is just the time interval for which you have lived.
You can calculate it by subtracting your date of your birth from today's date, both of which are times.
Pretending that a time interval has nothing to do with time is silly.
Hold your horses right here, don't go further.
Read carefully the following, because will be good for you.
Einstein died spending his last years trying to unite Relativity theory with Quantum Mechanics theory. He failed with his attempts.
But, years later, suddenly lots of publications came with an already marriage of Relativity and Quantum working together without issues at all. No explanation given, no name of the scientists capable to do what Einstein didn't when he was alive. It is heard that these two theories were finally fitting one with another because was an error in the equations in one of them, an error which impeded such marriage between these two theories. In other words, one of the theories paid the price of being modified.
But, the problem with this situation is that each theory was working fine by their own before such "modification in one of them". In other words, one of these two theories finally was found FALSE because had an error, and now is a modified theory in order to be validated.
At the end, the modified theory is not the original one but a different theory. It is a different theory because it has different results. You know that in mathematics a single error causes the total result as false. Then, before the modification made in one of the theories, the now modified theory was false in its very beginning.
This reminds me Evolution theory which started with the assumption that species evolved from worst to better, from simple to more complex, from inferior to superior. Later evolutionists found out their theory was dead wrong and changed their version saying the word "evolution" in the theory is just a technical word, so the theory is just about "change". No arrows or directions for species to follow but just change, then whatever it happens with the species, such is evolution. So, if the species goes extinct, then such is evolution. I have no idea why people still believing in such stupidity, but well, each one is entitled to his own belief...
We have here, that for some necessity, the marriage between these two theories was accomplished. So far Quantum theory was working fine by its own and was in no need of foreign assistance. But Relativity theory was always challenged, always in trouble, like today right here in this topic.
So, I will tell you the next. The black holes theory is based on Relativity theory, and this happened before the union between Relativity and Quantum.
You are to respond the existence of black holes in accord to Relativity theory alone, according to the doctrines of Relativity only. Black holes theory wasn't born from a marriage between Relativity and Quantum but from the deluded dreams of Relativity alone.
If you can't defend the existence of black holes showing your evidence in base of Relativity theory alone, then your claims are found unacceptable.
And by the way, I was reading other parts of the conversation here, and if you want to show a lump of time, I think you can buy it very cheap on eBay... but you can also try at Amazon...
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What a remarkably long-winded way of saying "No."
So you know diddly squat about Quantum Mechanics. Good to clear that up, at least - though I'd have been amazed if you had claimed to know any.
Last edited:
Luchito:
I'm still waiting for you to provide even one actual argument against anything in relativity. So far, all you do is keep stating your uninformed opinion that there must be something wrong somewhere.
Are you going to answer any of the questions that I have asked you? Are you going to do what you said you would do back in April 2021? That was 7 months ago, and there's been nothing of any substance or consequence from you. Why?
Remember reading the peer reviewed literature during your PhD studies? (BTW, you seem very quiet on that subject. You are actually qualified in physics, aren't you?)
Understand?
Similarly, relativity doesn't make Galileo and Newton wrong, because relativistic mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of small speeds, low mass, flat spacetime etc. This is one of the strengths of the theory of relativity - that it reproduces already-established results in the appropriate limits.
Are you ever going to actually make an argument?
Certainly, relativity does not need to be defended against your ignorant opinions.
I'm still waiting for you to provide even one actual argument against anything in relativity. So far, all you do is keep stating your uninformed opinion that there must be something wrong somewhere.
Are you going to answer any of the questions that I have asked you? Are you going to do what you said you would do back in April 2021? That was 7 months ago, and there's been nothing of any substance or consequence from you. Why?
That can't be right. When scientific papers are published, I think you'll find that the authors' names and contact details are always at the top of the paper.
Remember reading the peer reviewed literature during your PhD studies? (BTW, you seem very quiet on that subject. You are actually qualified in physics, aren't you?)
In science, as you will be aware from your own extensive studies, often when new theory is developed the old theory remains accurate and relevant in certain limits that are well understood and clearly defined. It is very seldom that a well-established scientific theory that correctly describes a host of different physical phenomena has to be completely tossed out, so that scientists have to start from scratch with a brand new theory.
No. As you will be aware from your own extensive scientific studies, Newtonian physics is not "false" in the light of quantum physics, to take one example. It is more that it is only accurate to a certain level and in specified limits. Quantum mechanics is a more complete theory than Newtonian physics, because it encompasses Newtonian physics in appropriate limits. That does not make Newtonian physics wrong; it just makes it incomplete.
Understand?
Similarly, relativity doesn't make Galileo and Newton wrong, because relativistic mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of small speeds, low mass, flat spacetime etc. This is one of the strengths of the theory of relativity - that it reproduces already-established results in the appropriate limits.
Wrong again. If you feel like you need to learn about evolution, I can educate you about that in a different thread, if you like. Let's keep this one for discussion of your spurious claims about black holes etc.
You hit the nail on the head there! You have no idea. That's what it comes down to. Failure to get an education. Your failure. But it's not too late! You don't have to stay ignorant like this forever. I can help clear up at least some of your misconceptions.
But you've brought nothing that shows any trouble for relativity to this thread, so far.
Are you ever going to actually make an argument?
Black hole theory development didn't exactly stop in 1920, you know.
If that's what you want, we can do that for now.
There's no need for me to defend it. Nothing you have said has challenged it, so far. It's established science. Unless you can show there's something wrong with it - you know, by making a scientific argument, there's nothing that needs defending.
Certainly, relativity does not need to be defended against your ignorant opinions.
Let's try this approach to show the difference
A light photon from the sun traveling at light speed reaches Earth in about 8½ minutes
For us the time interval (how old - its age) the photon is is 8½ minutes aged (old)
Since the photon has traveled at light speed it has not experienced time
So is the photon zero age or 8½ minutes age?
It depends on which reference frame is doing the time measurement.
More importantly: why do you think this example is relevant to your silly claim that time doesn't exist? Haven't you just been talking about time?
Well in the reference frame of the photon there is no TIME (capitals indicating a FUNDIMENTAL)
In human reference frame time (lower case indicating general language agreement) the photon existed 8½ minutes
Interesting reading below
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/newsflash-time-may-not-exist
Seems like scientists way above my pay scale also toy with TIME not existing
In fairness I'm guessing scientists way above your pay scale agree with you that TIME exist
I really don't wish to engage in my scientists are better than your scientists Ping Pong so I will endeavour to put forward (rewording) those who go for TIME not existing, hopefully not mangling the explanation in the process
Reference will be given, to enable those reading, to gauge how effective (or not) I have been in my effort
In the reference frame of the photon there is no DISTANCE (capitals indicating a FUNDIMENTAL).
So do you think that means there is no time or distance? Stop being silly!
? Are you claiming - DISTANCE (capitals indicating a FUNDIMENTAL). - as being a FUNDIMENTAL?
Interesting
. So I can ask you to walk a FUNDIMENTAL DISTANCE and you would know exactly how far I am requesting you walk?Very Interesting
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.html
Small extract
In fact, photons don't experience any time at all.
Last edited:
Correct. It represents the three real dimensions of space. It's a concept that describes reality.
Likewise, a kilogram is a concept that describes the reality of weight. Time is a concept that describes the progression of events.
You'll find it the same place you can find a lump of gravity, or a lump of spatial dimension. Hopefully you don't think they are illusions too
.Congratulations! You have just figured out that there are two different rates of time passing depending on the frame of reference.
Lump of gravity. I understand gravity is detectable, and hence its existence is confirmed. Have not heard of a lump of gravity though. Unless you are meaning places where gravity shows an increase due to there being more mass present
Lump of spatial dimension, no such animal. Merely a made up agreed upon concept label for a location
Ummmmm in my post
do you see the words "rates of time"? AGE is the operative word and your reply does not address the question, "is the photon zero age or 8½ minutes age?
Strange you would consider a photon of zero age as being a photon where time has passed
Hmm. Yet just above, you said that if you cannot show someone a lump of something (say, time) it does not exist! And that you were waiting on that lump; you would not believe it until you saw it.
How strange. It's as if you are arguing with yourself.
Yes I did! From your perspective the photon is 8.5 minutes old. (Actually much older than that since photons bounce around quite a bit inside the sun before escaping.) From the photon's perspective, zero time has elapsed. That is because time is passing at different rates in the two different reference frames.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Thousands of years, in fact.
https://sciencing.com/distances-planets-sun-light-years-8774149.html
More to the point: the photon does not have a perspective at all. "a photon's perspective is" an oxymoron.
Photons (in a vacuum) move at c in all frames of reference, by definition. For a photon to have a FoR, it would have to be both stationary and moving at c simultaneously. And that is impossible.
As above, photons, by definition, do not have reference frames.
Michael 345 said: ↑
Absolutely True .
Highlighted .
That time is based on objective real physical movement , of real physical objects . Time is an abstracted mathematical thinking , not based on the physical . Hence much thinking that time is real . Time is not real , to the Universe. biological movement has a different perspective of time .
Absolutely True .
Highlighted .
That time is based on objective real physical movement , of real physical objects . Time is an abstracted mathematical thinking , not based on the physical . Hence much thinking that time is real . Time is not real , to the Universe. biological movement has a different perspective of time .
Last edited: