DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Then maybe don't say things likeI'm not saying that relativity doesn't work ...
... scrutiny reveals Relativity as a false theory...
Then maybe don't say things likeI'm not saying that relativity doesn't work ...
... scrutiny reveals Relativity as a false theory...
Right, well duration requires an extent of what we call time. Call duration age if you like.
Can you show me a lump of length?If you mean time, as in a non scientific term as you indicated, duration age, age as used in everyday language is not referring to fundamental TIME
Can you please explain why no evidence of TIME existing has been forthcoming?
So many are claiming its existence
If it was on a lab bench for examination, or a piece of equipment available to detect TIME where is the lump on the bench? or the detection apparatus?
Could it be
Starting to see a pattern here
- lump - does not exist
- apparatus - does not exist
- list of characteristics - does not exist
- list of properties - does not exist
Coffee due
![]()
It does to all extents, in every situation we have looked at. There are, so far, no exceptions.I'm not saying that relativity doesn't work , practicably . It does to some extent .
Could it be
- lump - does not exist
- apparatus - does not exist
- list of characteristics - does not exist
- list of properties - does not exist
It does to all extents, in every situation we have looked at. There are, so far, no exceptions.
As DaveC tried to explain to you, the idea of "the reference frame of the photon" makes no sense. In every valid inertial frame, photons travel at a speed of c. There is no frame in which an observer could hypothetically see photons with speed zero.Well in the reference frame of the photon there is no TIME (capitals indicating a FUNDIMENTAL)
When I look at that, I see a page festooned with advertising, which makes it difficult to read.Interesting reading below
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/newsflash-time-may-not-exist
I don't think so. The idea of time passing or progressing is, in a particular view of relativity, one that is debatable, but physics can't be done without the concept of time.Seems like scientists way above my pay scale also toy with TIME not existing
The NIST guy is just boasting a little about the importance of NIST to timekeeping. What he means is not that time doesn't exist, but that NIST helps to set theSlight division and repeating a reference
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/newsflash-time-may-not-exist
Small extract
Our clocks do not measure time
the person at the facility, The National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardises time for the nation) is admitting there is no objective TIME to be measured
Your mother is older than you. Done.Back to James - any poster in the forum can instantly show TIME has a existence (just as the poster can instantly show his god exist) by producing evidence
No. In science, we can never have access to an "absolute reality". We only have the access that our best instruments and detectors allow us to have. We have no way of knowing what is "fundamental" (note the spelling, BTW).A facility whose purpose is to synchronise time for a nation but does not use fundimental TIME for said synchronisation and produces its own version of time to use seems to me a very strange setup
There's no way to know.Again what characteristics does fundimental TIME have?
Yes. It's called a clock. But even you can do it, with your built-in clocks.Is there such a equipment device which detects TIME?
Atomic clocks seem to be doing excellent work in keeping time with increasing accuracy.Retroreflectors seem to be doing a excellent work in the field of detecting the distance to the Moon with increasing accuracy
Then you ought to get yourself a better dictionary. Try a scientific one, perhaps. Or a more complete version of one of the ones you have already consulted. For instance:I looked up dimension and the three dictionaries only gave Hight Width Depth. No mention of TIME
river:
Since you never have anything useful to add to a discussion about science, why don't you just stay out of this one? I mean, I know we're in the pseudoscience subforum here, but you're just getting in the way of somebody possibly being educated, with your inane comments.
You can cheer on the pseudoscientist Luchito if it makes you feel better about yourself - throw him a few more likes, so you can feel like you're sticking it to the man. But please don't post anything. You just add clutter.
I'd be happy to leave a discussion of quantum mechanics out of this, because it seems likely that you'll have an even poorer understanding of that topic that you have of relativity. But, before, you wanted to talk about Hawking radiation, which can't be done properly without talking about quantum physics. So, I'm a little puzzled. Perhaps we should just drop that topic, too, for now.I already posted that best for you is to exclude quantum mechanics and keep Relativity alone to prove the existence of those black holes of yours. But, do you know what? Add your quantum mechanics, after all it is just another theory with lots of failures from its very beginning, since the thought of the cat inside the box.
Nah. It's quantum physics, like I said, and if you're unaware of the basics I don't have the time or desire to educate you about them. Go look it up.Mechanism? Don't tell me. You better show here what mechanism you are talking about. No links accepted. Use your own words, and copy as many formulas, equations and even drawing you need to show your mechanism. I want to read it from you.
Sorry. I can't possibly list the vast majority of the community of physics professionals here.Who are those guys saying Einstein and Hawking works are valid in science? Write their names here.
Try googling "evidence for ..." and fill in that blank with "relativity" or "Hawking radiation". You can get back to me after you have done that.Also, what methods they used to verify if the words of those two individuals are accurate.
In the peer-reviewed literature, of course! Where else would they be?Where are yours?
Strange. All this time, you have been questioning the credentials of scientists like Einstein and Hawking, but apparently your own credentials are somehow unimportant. It looks like you have a double standard - one for yourself, a different one for everybody else.It appears that you asking me for my profile is the beginning of your sure falling, because you have no evidence at all and now your messages are becoming personal.
You're out.No matter how famous and important the author of a theory can be for the scientific community. If his words are not supported by PHYSICAL REALITY then he is out, definitively he is out.
I addressed this previously. Please re-read.I just wrote clocks malfunction when exposed to an environment other than the one in which those were CALIBRATED.
The common belief is that atomic clocks are "perfect" and such is a laughable idea. Even L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clocks knew that his invention is not perfect. There is nothing "perfect" made by man, nothing. Atomic clocks, by the way they are built and the procedure of its function is one machine subjected to show any malfunction inside it.
If you want to keep the atomic clock works at the same rate of its original calibration, then don't move it.
On the contrary, I believe that moving an atomic clock will affect its rate in the ways that are predicted by the theory of relativity. Moreover, my belief is backed up with extensive evidence.On the other hand, your belief is that moving the atomic clock won't affect it at all, and such is your mistake because you do ignore how those clocks work.
I've done that already.You are not doing your part, I told you to study how radiation comes to be.
You seem to be denying that Hawking's theory exists now. Very strange.No matter if you apply Relativity alone, quantum mechanics alone, quantum relativity or relativistic quantum. Radiation is produced only one way, and black holes, by the way the theory explain such a body exists, such body can't evaporate radiation.
I don't want to. It would just mean more work for me trying to disabuse you of further misconceptions and faulty understandings you have on a different topic.Evolution theory was used as an ANALOGY, but you can start a topic about if you want to.
That's an easy thing for you to say, but until and unless you can actually bring any science to the table, it's an empty claim. But I told you this back in April, 7 months ago. You couldn't bring it then, and I don't expect you'll bring it now, either. You haven't even made a start, yet.In my opinion, if you paid for Physics classes, then you must ask for a refund, because your teachers taught you fantasies rather than science.
Profiling posters here is out of bounds, but profiling esteemed scientists like Einstein and Hawking is just fine?Which one of your contributions are related with Relativity? Of course you can have your thesis, but how much will contribute to the advance in science, such is debatable. On the other hand, profiling posters here, such is unacceptable.
Present your evidence that relativity is wrong. Note: not your opinion. Evidence. We've heard quite enough about your opinion on this. You've had months to come up with something. What have you been doing?Oh, I see your point of view. You want to make the movie "Theory Wars", where theories against theories will attack one to another.
To your disappointment, a theory is not proved valid or false by using a different theory against it. No, in order to prove the validity of a theory you use evidence.
No. You expressed your opinion that there's no flowing time.I showed you that there is no flowing time...
Then you're denying the thousands upon thousands of experiments that support the physical reality of relativity. That's not my problem!I think your ideas are far away from becoming evidence in physical reality.
Of course.Have you ever read papers presented in journals?
Lets see, for example:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mich/6b1b1cc7ba87fbb9fc363014e1b4d69909366528
Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation
Einstein's theory of special relativity and the principle of causality imply that the speed of any moving object cannot exceed that of light in a vacuum (c). Nevertheless, there exist various proposals for observing faster-than- c propagation of light pulses, using anomalous dispersion near an absorption line, nonlinear and linear gain lines, or tunnelling barriers.... etc. etc. etc.
This paper presented in year 2000 started showing what Relativity stands for, but later shows other "proposals" obtained from experiments made with light thru gas and so forth.
Here we are in that first step, the one showing what Relativity said WRONG.
Relativists have spread out their fantasies for 100 years already, what is the rush for showing the sure evidence in a few months?
Oh dear. Where to start with you?Relativity is based on a flowing time with his own arrow when is flowing. Look at Hawking diagram, time has its flowing in one way, space is way open, light travels in an allowed path, there is a zone to which we better call it "the limbo". Wow!
Again, there's no content to what you say other than your opinion. If you have specific objections, why don't you explain what they are? Reference the science, not just your gut feeling that something is absurd. That has been your mistake all along.And funny, this diagram is just the top over a similar diagram under which is also a cone. The coordinates presented by Hawking are absurd when you add the other cone at its bottom, this is to see, when you see the full figure. This representation of Hawking is the interpretation of Relativity doctrines.
What's not to agree about?Are you going to tell me that you are not in agreement with that diagram?
Don't be silly. I didn't say that!Because so far, you agree with Einstein and Hawking even when those two individuals really don't know what they are talking about.
Are you comparing credentials again, now? You're criticising Einstein's photoelectric theory because it wasn't awarded a Nobel prize soon enough for your liking? Shouldn't you be concentrating on whether there's evidence that the theory is right or wrong, instead? Your methods are very inconsistent.Alfred Nobel stated clearly before he died in 1986 that the prizes given in his name were to contribute for science advance solely with proved works, not for theoretical works. Photoelectric was presented for Nobel Prize since 1910 to 1921-22.
12 years rejection for such a theory. And finally was accepted for Nobel Prize because the members of the Swiss Academy were tired of such lunatic insistence and persistence.
It's impossible to know what he was talking about, based on what you have quoted. What were his actual objections to the theory of relativity (if any)? What are the "arguments" to which he refers? I'm interested to learn more, but you're not telling me anything about the science. You're trying to rely on Essen's opinion. Why are you so focussed on opinions rather than the evidence you say is important? Oh, and did you check Essen's credentials, too? Why do you trust him above Einstein or Hawking?Louis Essen: Inventor of the atomic clock and the man responsible for the modern precise measurement of the speed of light. At first he suffered harsh criticism for his new measurements of the speed of light but it was the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific Union in 1957and in 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures adopted the standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light. The atomic clock is the standard of measure throughout the world and without it the GPS system would not be possible. Why is it little known that this winner of multiple awards in physics also published a paper called “The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis”? A member of the National Physical Laboratory of the UK from which he retired in 1972 after being quietly warned not to continue his contradiction of Einstein’s theory of relativity. "No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. …the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory."
Louis Essen F.R.S., "Relativity and time signals", Wireless World, oct78, p44. ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’
I guess he was talking about your teachers and about you in this last statement.
The evidence of physical time is that you remember yesterday and not tomorrow, that your mother is older than you are, etc. Simple.When I ask you the evidence of physical time then you called it a coordinate, when I ask you how a coordinate can perturb the normal function of an atomic clock, then you want me to explain quantum mechanics... when you don't answer directly the simple questions made to you from my part and from others, then you better start to realize that you are not the right person to defend Relativity theory or just you know the answer but you just don't want to concede with the fact that Relativity is not a theory of science.
You still haven't shown me a lump of gravity, nor explained the paradox you have created there.
So now you are trying distinguish common or garden time, as manifested in age (or duration) from something you call "fundamental" time?Gravity has been shown to exist via its effects on other bodies and detection of gravitational waves
More at this link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves#:~:text=Gravitational waves can be detected,planned space-based LISA instrument.
Ready to show how fundimental TIME (not age) affects stuff and how its presence is detected?
Note - fundimental TIME - not time as in everyday parlance
![]()
Atomic clocks seem to be doing excellent work in keeping time with increasing accuracy.
So now you are trying distinguish common or garden time, as manifested in age (or duration) from something you call "fundamental" time?
As everyone has pointed out, time is a dimension, not a physical thing. You can't show us how to "detect" distance, in the abstract. It's meaningless. So don't demand that we should do this for time.
time is a dimension, not a physical thing