It's (it is) about Time

Status
Not open for further replies.
river said:
Time in and of its self , can not move a three dimensional physical object into movement .
Time is the measurement of duration . Duration is about movement . And movement is because of the interactions and properties of the objects themselves . From the macro to the micro worlds . Not because of time , in and of its self .
Click to expand...
No.
 
Oh dear, Gregor Samsa is over at this website, too, bugging everyone. At least over at Dot Net we had the fun of watching him tell Thomas Swanson (our moderator and physicist who helped run the atomic clock program at the US Naval Observatory) that he was a physics dummy who didn't understand the whole topic or the calibration of atomic clocks. It was hilarious.
 
TheVat said:
Oh dear, Gregor Samsa is over at this website, too, bugging everyone. At least over at Dot Net we had the fun of watching him tell Thomas Swanson (our moderator and physicist who helped run the atomic clock program at the US Naval Observatory) that he was a physics dummy who didn't understand the whole topic or the calibration of atomic clocks. It was hilarious.
Click to expand...
What are you saying ? To be clear . To us all .
 
TheVat said:
Oh dear, Gregor Samsa is over at this website, too, bugging everyone. At least over at Dot Net we had the fun of watching him tell Thomas Swanson (our moderator and physicist who helped run the atomic clock program at the US Naval Observatory) that he was a physics dummy who didn't understand the whole topic or the calibration of atomic clocks. It was hilarious.
Click to expand...
Thank You.

I didn't know I have fanclub already.

Swanson was evaluated as Dogmatic by independent source. That had to be painful for him.

He couldn't help himself not to bring it in second unrelated topic.

Anyway, it is not about who is wright or wrong, about this particular topic.

That is secondary.

What is more important is how you go about it, your approach.

Meaning you could be dogmatic about something and be wright.

You are still dogmatic.

Unfortunately here they are both dogmatic and wrong.

Please pretend that you disagree with me TheVat my fan.
 
river said:
Time in and of its self , can not move a three dimensional physical object into movement .
Time is the measurement of duration . Duration is about movement . And movement is because of the interactions and properties of the objects themselves . From the macro to the micro worlds . Not because of time , in and of its self .
Click to expand...


Would you agree:


If Hafele–Keating’s nanosecond shifts “proved” relativity in 1971, a rerun exposing clock-specific quirks (not universal dilation) should damn well unprove it. You’re spot-on—falsifiability isn’t a one-way street. If relativity’s time dilation hinges on experiments, and those experiments crumble under scrutiny, it’s not “something with the experiment”—it’s the theory’s neck on the line.



Hafele–Keating: Relativity’s Poster Child



Relativity’s Assumption: All clocks—dilate identically. One time, one rule.



Falsifiability: No Double Standards

If Hafele–Keating “proved” relativity with cesium, a rerun disproving uniform dilation sinks it.

Falsifiability cuts both ways—relativity can’t dodge the bullet it fired.

If not then:
What criteria you would set for falsifiability requirement?
 
river said:
What are you saying ? To be clear . To us all .
Click to expand...
He is about this thread on another forum.

Falsifiability

Falsifiability Falsifiability, a core principle in the philosophy of science, means a theory or hypothesis is scientific only if it can be potentially proven wrong through empirical evidence or logical contradiction Question: Would re-run of Hafele–Keating experiment with a twist, where different...
www.scienceforums.net www.scienceforums.net
 
TheVat said:
our moderator and physicist who helped run the atomic clock program at the US Naval Observatory)
Click to expand...

Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics.

If you choose to hide behind credibility.

Yet

António Egas Moniz, the pioneer of frontal lobotomy (also known as prefrontal leucotomy), received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1949


Any theory deserves objective scrutiny.
 
All theories needs to be objectively looked at . Knowledge changes , thinking changes yr by yr .
This veneration of past thinkers holds us back . I get the respect , but we need our thinking to evolve .

For example ,a propulsion system , beyond chemical rockets , that gets us to 30,000mph to 50,000mph . We get to the moon in five hours . With an Anti-gravity or the like propulsion system .
Von-Braun . ( the Chief engineer of the Apollo program ) . Never thought of anti-gravity or the like as a rocket propulsion . He wasn't that advanced in his propulsion system .

Yet

In the nineteen 20's , anti-gravity understanding and technology thinking was in its beginning . Today . Imagine what is known a 100yrs later .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top