It's (it is) about Time

[grzegorzsz830402]

No we don't. We go where the evidence leads us.

Currently we have a model that very neatly explains what we observe. It has been so thoroughly tested that the technology our modern society depends on accounts for that model. If the model weren't predictively and quantitatively accurate our technology would fall apart. That is inarguable.

You are welcome to challenge that with you own theory, but you have yet to show any data that puts the lie to SR, and you have yet to show any theory to substitute. All I see you doing is complaining.

(And furthermore, why would anyone bother to engage someone who is trolling with insults like "stupid" and "not so bright"?)

Stop stalling. Stop trolling.


Nice try, playing the victim card.

No one is enforcing their beliefs on you. No one is making you say or think anything you don't want to. No one is silencing anything you say.

Grow up.

You have come here with a claim of how you believe time works. You haven't shown a shred of evidence why it mgiht be so, and whenever you say anything, it is simply parroting the words of a chatbot - words that you don't understand yourself.

Nowhere in there is anyone telling you what you have to believe. We are simply asking you to justify your currently baseless claims that you have made here.

Now stop whining and get on with it, or yes, locking this mess of a whining complaining thread is the best option.


Yes. At the very least, we can hope to wean you from suckling at the chatbot teat.

No we don't. We go where the evidence leads us.

Currently we have a model that very neatly explains what we observe. It has been so thoroughly tested that the technology our modern society depends on accounts for that model. If the model weren't predictively and quantitatively accurate our technology would fall apart. That is inarguable.

You are welcome to challenge that with you own theory, but you have yet to show any data that puts the lie to SR, and you have yet to show any theory to substitute. All I see you doing is complaining.

(And furthermore, why would anyone bother to engage someone who is trolling with insults like "stupid" and "not so bright"?)

Stop stalling. Stop trolling.


Nice try, playing the victim card.

No one is enforcing their beliefs on you. No one is making you say or think anything you don't want to. No one is silencing anything you say.

Grow up.

You have come here with a claim of how you believe time works. You haven't shown a shred of evidence why it mgiht be so, and whenever you say anything, it is simply parroting the words of a chatbot - words that you don't understand yourself.

Nowhere in there is anyone telling you what you have to believe. We are simply asking you to justify your currently baseless claims that you have made here.

Now stop whining and get on with it, or yes, locking this mess of a whining complaining thread is the best option.


Yes. At the very least, we can hope to wean you from suckling at the chatbot teat.

GROK is quite conservative it is not easy to make him support claims that go against current scientific notions.

You have to point out to data that prove that.

He is, weighing in, evaluating as objective yet conservative bystander.



Cesium: +10 Hz → +93.916 ns/day.
Rubidium: +10 Hz → +126.403 ns/day.
Maser: +10 Hz → +608.342 ns/day.
Same 10 Hz gain—different ns/day.

In your face.

 

[DaveC426913]

GROK is quite conservative it is not easy to make him support claims that go against current scientific notions.

I have already shown that your chatbot is incapable of correctly understanding the very simple math of muon decay. And you have shown that you don't understand it well enough to find the fault yourself. Do we need to go back and revisit that? I thought you've agreed you didn't have answers. After you now flip-flopping and asserting that your chatbot's words are correct and verified by you?

You have to point out to data that prove that.

No. You have to make your claims here, in your own words, and be able to defend them, in your own words, when you get it wrong.

To be clear: The onus is on you to prove your claims, not on us to disprove them.
As yet, you have not done so.

Listing a bunch of numbers and atomic elements is not proving a claim.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

No. You have to make your claims here, in your own words, and be able to defend them, in your own words, when you get it wrong.

I have already shown that your chatbot is incapable of correctly understanding the very simple math of muon decay. And you have shown that you don't understand it well enough to find the fault yourself. Do we need to go back and revisit that? I thought you've agreed you didn;t have answers. After you now flip-flopping and asserting that your chatbot's words are correct and verified by you?

The onus is on you to support your claims, not on us to disprove them.
As yet, you have not done so.

Listing a bunch of numbers and atomic elements is not supporting a claim.

First theory is mine not his he did not come up with it.

Second you have only proved that trying to find common ground with you is impossible.

When you have different models different perspectives you have to stripe what is being talked about to raw data.

Yet you do not have ability to look at one thing from different perspectives to compare them.

 

[billvon]

Cesium: +10 Hz → +93.916 ns/day.
Rubidium: +10 Hz → +126.403 ns/day.
Maser: +10 Hz → +608.342 ns/day.
Same 10 Hz gain—different ns/day.

In your face.

? That's not even physics. That's math, and not very interesting math at that.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

To be clear: The onus is on you to prove your claims, not on us to disprove them.
As yet, you have not done so.

This is where we disagree.

I think it is pretty much done deal.

Running experiment that will produce outcomes, that in face of already existing data can be predicted with confidence, being in my favour.

Formality.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

? That's not even physics. That's math, and not very interesting math at that.

It is not interesting that you have clock dependent discrepancy?

When it was suggested before that it will certainly not be the case.

yet it is.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

Falsifiability, a core principle in science, means a theory or hypothesis must be capable of being proven wrong through empirical evidence; it's not about proving something true, but about identifying potential evidence that could disprove it.

So if you do not accept what have been provided, even if you should.

Regardless

State
identify potential evidence that could disprove relativity.

Otherwise you prove the point of being dogmatic

 

[DaveC426913]

First theory is mine not his he did not come up with it.

Maybe, maybe not. how would we know? You just keep copy pasting Grok without understanding it.

If you want us to treat you as the writer, maybe you should stop regurgitating Grok.

Second you have only proved that trying to find common ground with you is impossible.

Once again, do you expect us to find common ground on things that are not true?

When you have different models different perspectives you have to stripe what is being talked about to raw data.

You have some explaining to do about what that raw data night be saying.

Yet you do not have ability to look at one thing from different perspectives to compare them.

I certainly do. I donl;t have the ability to look at things that are wrong and pretend they are not wrong.
You job is to show me things that are right.

Running experiment that will produce outcomes, that in face of already existing data can be predicted with confidence, being in my favour.

Great. Experiments have been run on SR and have come back with flying colours.
Before running new experiments, your ideas will have to match existing observations.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

No. You have to make your claims

No I do not have to make my claims here I can make them elsewhere

How that feels when someone takes what you said out of context?

 

[DaveC426913]

Falsifiability, a core principle in science, means a theory or hypothesis must be capable of being proven wrong through empirical evidence; it's not about proving something true, but about identifying potential evidence that could disprove it.

So if you do not accept what have been provided, even if you should.

Regardless

State
identify potential evidence that could disprove relativity.

Otherwise you prove the point of being dogmatic

Sure.

Let's get on with it. Stop stalling.

 

[DaveC426913]

No I do not have to make my claims here I can make them elsewhere

Feel free to do so.

Meanwhile, your posting here means that you accept general debate protocol and the rules and policies of this forum and that you agreed to when you signed up.
And that means, if you want to make a claim here, the onus is on you to back it up, not on us to disprove it. You accept that by posting here.

How that feels when someone takes what you said out of context?

I do not think you know what that phrase means. That is not what taking something out of context means.

Stop stalling. Stop whining. Stop trolling.

Make your claim. Defend it with evidence matching what we currently observe. Then show specifically how it explains everything that SR currently explains, but better.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

And that means, if you want to make a claim here, the onus is on you to back it up, not on us to disprove it.

Which I did, decisively. And you are right, it is not your job to try to disprove it.

So why are you trying especially that you have failed completely and disappointed those who believe in you

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

I do not think you know what that phrase means. That is not what taking something out of context means.

I do, as your statement was about that claim that I am making her should be in my own words , and I have taken out of context suggesting you imply that I have to make my claims here.

So that is taking things out of context and that is what you do and I wanted to show you that do not feel nice.

Maybe you are not unaware when you are doing this.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

Sure.

Let's get on with it. Stop stalling.

Just do it, you do not have to wait for green light from me.

I think that experiment that is being used as one that supposedly proves relatively would be as good to disprove it.

If not then what that says.
We are trying to prove our self writing.

That is not scientific approach.

 

[DaveC426913]

Which I did, decisively. And you are right, it is not your job to try to disprove it.

Your opening claim was that time is a concept, not a dimension, and ... something about cycles of Earth, which you were very vague about.
nothing you have said over 175 post comes close to addressing that.

So why are you trying especially that you have failed completely and disappointed those who believe in you

For someone who pretends to want a civilized discourse, you sure like to cast insults a lot. That is called hypocrisy.

And you're still stalling.

I do, as your statement was about that claim that I am making her should be in my own words , and I have taken out of context suggesting you imply that I have to make my claims here.

So that is taking things out of context and that is what you do and I wanted to show you that do not feel nice.

Maybe you are not unaware when you are doing this.

Nope. You don't understand what out of context means.

You are spending a lot of time flinging vacuous insults. Not much point in pretending you're a victim. That's hypocrisy.

And you're still stalling.

I think that experiment that is being used as one that supposedly proves relatively would be as good to disprove it.

Well I think the detection of pixie dust in old stars would prove that cosmic faeries created the stars.

By your logic, I should ask if someone will do that experiment for me, and until it's done I can demand you to disprove my idea.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

Nope. You don't understand what out of context means.

If a statement or remark is quoted out of context, the circumstances in which it was said are not correctly reported, so that it seems to mean something different from the meaning that was intended.

You do not know what out of context mean.

 

[DaveC426913]

If a statement or remark is quoted out of context, the circumstances in which it was said are not correctly reported, so that it seems to mean something different from the meaning that was intended.

You do not know what out of context mean.

And the quoted remark did not mean something different; so it was not out of context.

Did you want stall and talk about grammar and linguistics? Or did you want to get on with it and talk about time?

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

Your opening claim was that time is a concept, not a dimension, and ... something about cycles of Earth, which you were very vague about.
nothing you have said over 175 post comes close to addressing that.


For someone who pretends to want a civilized discourse, you sure like to cast insults a lot. That is called hypocrisy.

And you're still stalling.


Nope. You don't understand what out of context means.

You are spending a lot of time flinging vacuous insults. Not much point in pretending you're a victim. That's hypocrisy.

And you're still stalling.



Well I think the detection of pixie dust in old stars would prove that cosmic faeries created the stars.

By your logic, I should ask if someone will do that experiment for me, and until it's done I can demand you to disprove my idea.

You have lost your marbles.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

And the quoted remark did not mean something different; so it was not out of context.

Did you want stall and talk about grammar and linguistics? Or did you want to get on with it and talk about time?

It did, I have explained it.

Do you want me to break it down again for you??

You have lost your marbles. Mate.

 

[billvon]

It is not interesting that you have clock dependent discrepancy?

No. You have MATH dependent discrepancy. Not clock dependent discrepancy.

Let's say you change a 10hz signal by 10hz. Will that be a minor or a huge change?
Let's say you change a 2.4GHz signal by 10hz. Will that be a minor or a huge change?

After you figure out the answers to those questions, you will see it has nothing to do with physics. Merely with math.